Decision 2016

[Dad_Scaper]

. . . and yet another way in which we are under siege. Not just the small "we," but the big "we," Americans who value the bedrock freedoms that make America great. Not great "again," but great now. This is not right.

[Hahma]

He's such a ****ing dick. He used the media to help him get elected. He got tons of free advertising and played the media the way he wanted to. When he says stupid ****, they have to report it because it's their job. Then he denounces them to his followers and they buy into the not trusting the media crap. They turn to other sources to get their news, though who the heck knows any truths that come from those sources, but at least it's not the "dirty media".

He's setting up the media even more now, so that whenever they report negative things or have raise questions, his followers are going to naysay that reporting because "the mainstream media is biased against him and always lies."

He continues to show what a thin-skinned little child he is. Sure, his followers will say that he's maverick and treating the media how the need to be treated and he is the only one with the balls to do it. The problem with that is that he is like that with anyone that doesn't praise him and kiss his ring. So because the media doesn't worship him, he calls them liars. What a ****ing hypocrite! He lies all the time and yet has the gall to call others liars. Yet his followers eat that **** up and buy right into it.

What an embarrassment.

[Raider30]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

. . . and yet another way in which we are under siege. Not just the small "we," but the big "we," Americans who value the bedrock freedoms that make America great. Not great "again," but great now. This is not right.

Lol. I'm sorry, you guys are upset because the media got its hand slapped after years, and years of biased reporting and it's the end of our "bedrock freedoms"? Give me a break. It's this constant bitching about stuff like this that doesn't matter that causes people like me to dismiss 90% of the complaints people have. It's armageddon fatigue, and the sky is not falling because Donald Trump told the media what he thought of them. Good god get a grip people. Especially coming off the heels of one of the least transparent administrations in recent history.

The media is STILL FREE to do their job, investigate and report, even if Trump has a low opinion of them.

- Raider30

[Hahma]

Well he has ditched the media since being President Elect, and doing so as President wouldn't be so cool. There have been times where some big events happened in the world, and having the press corps there for the President to make an statement or address has been a good thing. Of course, perhaps Trump will simply thumb his nose at the media and post his thoughts on the crisis on Twitter or YouTube. Some people will see it I suppose.

Well if they were biased this election cycle, it was because Trump made it so. He got so much free attention because of stuff he said. Plain and simple. He missed plenty of opportunity to let the media to sink its teeth into Clinton because he'd say something stupid and bring the attention back on himself. Apparently that strategy worked, because not only did it get him the White House, but it also saved him a ton of money. But for him to whine about the media that he used for his benefit, it's pretty hypocritical.

So he slapped the media on the wrist. So what, a liar is calling the media a liar. I'm sure those people are sleeping fine.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Raider30

Lol. I'm sorry, you guys are upset because the media got its hand slapped after years, and years of biased reporting and it's the end of our "bedrock freedoms"? Give me a break. It's this constant bitching about stuff like this that doesn't matter that causes people like me to dismiss 90% of the complaints people have. It's armageddon fatigue, and the sky is not falling because Donald Trump told the media what he thought of them. Good god get a grip people. Especially coming off the heels of one of the least transparent administrations in recent history.

The media is STILL FREE to do their job, investigate and report, even if Trump has a low opinion of them.

- Raider30

The President does not get to tell the media how to do its job. Regardless, he made a specific accusation, and it was not a complaint about "bias." He accused them of being "liars."

Now, I know that many people take it on faith that the media have a liberal bias. I suspect, without knowing for sure, that those people would have a tough time finding evidence to support that proposition. Can you? I know you can find evidence that the media aren't *trusted*, but can you find evidence that the media are *biased*?

Regardless, the accusation wasn't one of bias, but was one of "lying." That's a serious accusation, and I think it's appropriate to ask for evidence of it. I can't ask the President Elect, but do *you* have any idea what he's talking about? Can you give examples?

I am aware that Obama's administration was not transparent. He did not sit a bunch of members of the media down and accuse them of being liars, though. He let them do their jobs.

As for the conflicts of interest, they are frightening, too. What you call "Armageddon fatigue" I call "reading the news." He registered eight (six? I forget (edit: eight)) businesses in Saudi Arabia during the campaign, laying the groundwork for major construction there. I hope you would agree that if he has multimillion dollar projects in that country, it might affect diplomatic relations. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm not a child. I've seen the office of the presidency change parties more than once. I'm not nervous because Clinton lost; I'm nervous because of specific things the President Elect is doing. I hope you're right; I hope my concern will amount to nothing.

edit: Today's separate meeting, between Trump and the NYT, was canceled by the President Elect:

A spokeswoman for the Times said the newspaper was not aware the meeting was canceled until Trump's tweet, which came at about 6:30 a.m. EST (1130 GMT). Trump's team tried to change the conditions of the meeting on Monday, asking that it be off the record, but the newspaper refused, said spokeswoman Eileen Murphy.

He won't even meet with them unless they agree that it's "off the record." If they won't agree to keep it secret, he literally has nothing to say to them. Go ahead and defend him if you want, Raider30, but will you at least agree that these are uncharted waters?

[Hahma]

Well said DS.

So now he's discrediting the media, without giving specifics. He already discredited our intelligence agencies and generals, so who's next for him to tell the world that we shouldn't trust?

[Ranior]

We shall see how things go. The early reports of president elect Trump are not encouraging me that this is a man who will be upholding the job in a respectable manner.

The report with the media is whatever. It doesn't shock me, but it also isn't something I never thought our president would be doing.

The reports that Trump asked for personal favors from the president of Argentina is troubling. Of course he is denying them and it could be false, so it's hard to say. But the fact Trump and his children continue to hedge on stating that they will hand the business over to a blind trust does leave room for legitimate concerns over some conflicts of interest.

Finally, in some WI news a federal court just announced that the states redistricting at the Republican's hands in 2011 was unconstitutional. I know a few pages back I shared how I felt my state was pretty heavily gerrymandered in that last round of redistricting and now a federal court agreed. Of course nothing will officially change until the next round of elections, and even then we'll see what happens. But it is frustrating to know that I live in a state where gerrymandering has officially occurred now for several years and their won't be any actual punishments over it. The Republicans successfully gerrymandered the state districts so that they have had about 60% of the seats with 48-52% of the vote in recent years.

I really hope that within my lifetime we see reform in the redistricting process so that boundaries are set up by truly neutral parties to ensure that the representation closely matches the actual voters wishes. As is this representative democracy I live in hasn't even been working for me. In 2012 a majority voted for Democrats for the state senate and state assembly, yet the Republicans managed around 60% of the seats. Unfortunately I'm not sure this federal courts decision will actually matter as I'm sure my state's attorney general shall appeal to the supreme court. We'll see if change is actually had for the 2018 and beyond elections.

[Raider30]

[quote=Dad_Scaper;2122412]

Originally Posted by Raider30

Lol. I'm sorry, you guys are upset because the media got its hand slapped after years, and years of biased reporting and it's the end of our "bedrock freedoms"? Give me a break. It's this constant bitching about stuff like this that doesn't matter that causes people like me to dismiss 90% of the complaints people have. It's armageddon fatigue, and the sky is not falling because Donald Trump told the media what he thought of them. Good god get a grip people. Especially coming off the heels of one of the least transparent administrations in recent history.

The media is STILL FREE to do their job, investigate and report, even if Trump has a low opinion of them.

- Raider30

The President does not get to tell the media how to do its job. Regardless, he made a specific accusation, and it was not a complaint about "bias." He accused them of being "liars."

Sure he does, and they can choose to ignore him and do their job anyway. That is sort of the whole point about a free press isn't it? Every President out there has tried to control the media in one way, shape or form, and if they aren't doing it directly their staffers certainly are. Are you really going to argue that?

Here's an article that describes exactly the type of control Presidents attempt to exert on the media.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ms_127907.html

Now, I know that many people take it on faith that the media have a liberal bias. I suspect, without knowing for sure, that those people would have a tough time finding evidence to support that proposition. Can you? I know you can find evidence that the media aren't *trusted*, but can you find evidence that the media are *biased*?

I am curious, exactly what evidence would you accept? Because honestly I have a feeling that anything brought up as a perceived bias by one person can be seen as not biased by someone of the opposite bent. Would Donna Brazile feeding debate questions to Hillary Clinton count as a bias in your mind? I suspect it would for most people.

However, not everything has to be as obvious as that. You know as well as I do, especially given our respective jobs, that omission, or what is not said or asked, is often just as important to the story. Or the way a question is phrased to elicit an answer or box someone into a corner.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ide-it-anymore (sorry for the long link, I don't know how to shorten and caption it with a nifty title like you do)

For the record, I think that a person can be biased and still do their job. Being biased doesn't always mean using that bias to exert influence. Reporters are human, and they have thoughts/feelings/fears/hopes/etc. but it's when personal emotions come into their professional lives that they lose their credibility.

Regardless, the accusation wasn't one of bias, but was one of "lying." That's a serious accusation, and I think it's appropriate to ask for evidence of it. I can't ask the President Elect, but do *you* have any idea what he's talking about? Can you give examples?

Is it really all that serious? People lie all the time. I don't like it, my kids know that if I catch them lying any punishment for wrongdoing is likely going to be worse than the wrong doing itself. Nonetheless our culture is filled with "lies and the lying liars who tell them" - Al Franken.

This is exactly the kind of 'sky is falling' nonsense I'm talking about. Did the mass media and democrat left have a conniption when Clinton lied about coming under sniper fire? Nah, not really. Bill Clinton lied UNDER OATH WHILE HE WAS A SITTING PRESIDENT. But ya know it was only about sex so no big deal right? The perspective of the person hearing the lie is what determines exactly how much influence a person puts on the lie and how upset that person is about the lie. Donald Trumps perspective is that the media said some things that were wrong, intentionally or otherwise, and thus they lied about him. That's his perspective. We just had a whole section of this thread devoted to people exercising their rights to their perspective by protesting, he's entitled to his.

As people who attempt to deal in truth, because you and I know that lies can have direct impact on peoples lives, I don't think I'm out of line to say that the culture we live in is bothersome to both of us.

I am aware that Obama's administration was not transparent. He did not sit a bunch of members of the media down and accuse them of being liars, though. He let them do their jobs.

Nah, he tried to control the message just like everyone else dealing with the media tries to control the message. Admittedly he was smoother at it than Trump is. But in part that's what people like about Trump, he will directly attack back. I'm not saying it's the smartest thing to do, nor that I agree with it, but it's not the end of times.

As for the conflicts of interest, they are frightening, too. What you call "Armageddon fatigue" I call "reading the news." He registered eight (six? I forget (edit: eight)) businesses in Saudi Arabia during the campaign, laying the groundwork for major construction there. I hope you would agree that if he has multimillion dollar projects in that country, it might affect diplomatic relations. Wouldn't you agree?

Sure, as long as you agree that there was a possible conflict of interest between the Clinton Foundation, it's donors, and Hillary Clinton. It's odd really, I don't recall seeing a lot of hand-wringing about what might happen if Hillary Clinton became president, and how all those foreign donors might have affected her thoughts or diplomatic relations. Maybe it was there and I just missed it, but it doesn't seem like it was a huge deal. I wonder if that's because the appearance of impropriety is so enmeshed with the Clinton's that people just tune it out, a version of 'armageddon fatigue' maybe?(that's probably a philosophical question for another time though)

I'm not a child. I've seen the office of the presidency change parties more than once. I'm not nervous because Clinton lost; I'm nervous because of specific things the President Elect is doing. I hope you're right; I hope my concern will amount to nothing.

No you are not and it was not my intent to imply such. My frustration stems from the fact that I believe there are much more important things our country should be worrying about than if Trump scolded a bunch of media members who honestly run a business and are likely more worried about their ratings, subscriptions, income, and personal agendas than they are about educating the public with impartial facts about the various issues confronting the county. Which is why most of America probably knows that Kanye West was hospitalized but people can't name the senators from their state.

- Raider30

[Swamper]

I think, for me, the thing that gives me the most issue taking (some) liberal thinkers and common thoughts seriously is how seriously they take themselves. Do I think that Trump is going to be a good president? Not really. Am I alarmed by the moves Trump is making? Yes, I am. Am I going to freak out over it and exaggerate everything he does into a national disaster? No, because I know that in four years, we'll get the chance to remove him. Short term, Trump might cause trouble for the country. Long term, he's just gonna be another president. He might replace Nixon as the worst president, but the country survived Nixon fine, and we'll survive Trump fine.

[Dad_Scaper]

You guys aren't taking issue with my facts, just my level of alarm. That's cool. Like I said, as far as that goes, I hope you're right.

[Raider30]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

edit: Today's separate meeting, between Trump and the NYT, was canceled by the President Elect:

He won't even meet with them unless they agree that it's "off the record." If they won't agree to keep it secret, he literally has nothing to say to them. Go ahead and defend him if you want, Raider30, but will you at least agree that these are uncharted waters?

Again, you act like this is something new. Reporters meet with politicians all the time in an off the record capacity. Trump's tweet says it was the NYT who tried to change the terms of the meeting, the NYT quote you listed above says it was Trump. And as a small point of fact the article you linked also has this quote from the NYT:

"In the end, we concluded with them that we would go back to the original plan of a small off the record session and a larger on the record session with reporters and columnists," she said in a statement.

This quote indicates that the original plan WAS in fact an off the record session and that Trump's tweet was correct and the NYT statement was inaccurate.

Uncharted waters for a politician wanting to talk off the record or control the message? Ugh...stop please, I'm literally begging you to stop taking every little scrap of nonsense that comes out and turning it into a mountain. Remember the emails that came out about the Clinton campaign having 'veto' power over an NYT article? Here's a nice little article that talks all about it, one that clearly states numerous times that off the record talks go on all the time. It's nothing new, and certainly nothing uncharted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/ma...racy.html?_r=0

- Raider30

[Raider30]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

You guys aren't taking issue with my facts, just my level of alarm. That's cool. Like I said, as far as that goes, I hope you're right.

That's a pretty fair statement, however, the level of alarm is part of the problem, IMO. It's kind of a 'boy who cried wolf' or 'sky is falling' attitude that I honestly believe does more harm than good. Hence, my comment about 'armageddon fatigue'.

When everything is a crisis then nothing is a crisis.

- Raider30