Political Roundtable Part XII

[Wizardspride]

Dude...

Read on Twitter

[tontoz]

In case anyone missed it:

Watch on YouTube

Starts at 1:07:00

I lol'd a few times, "failing NY Times" and the way he dogs people about ratings.

I have to give him credit for not dodging tough questions maintaining a sense of humor when people are coming after him.

[Wizardspride]

Ok, but I don't think we are talking about the same thing here. Attacking the press for being biased or 'unfair' is a lot different than attacking the press for making up basic facts, which it appears Trump is doing.

I truly find it terrifying that Trump wants to delegitimize the press. Having state-run media as our only source of information is literally an Orwellian dystopia. You probably think that sounds hysterical, and I'm not saying that will happen, but isn't that what Trump wants to happen if he could make it so? Why does this not alarm you?

It doesn't bother me because Trump doesn't have the power to delegitimize the press any more than they deserve. The problem isn't Trump. The problem is that the press already is illegitimate.

If the press was honest and centrist, Trumps attack on them would seem like whining and it wouldn't be effective. But since the press is clearly dishonest and biased, his attacks have merit and are supported by half of Americans and perhaps more. (Trump's poll numbers are much better than the media's.)

Honest question Nate: Could your perception of the press be driven in part by your own right leaning views?

Basically what I'm saying is one man's centrist is another man's far left/right kook.


My issue with Trump is in attacking the media he's giving himself an out not to answer ANY questions.

[closg00]

12 lies Trump told at the presser.
http://www.progressivepostdaily./2017/02/16/12-lies-from-donald-trumps-press-conference-today/



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[nate33]

Ok, but I don't think we are talking about the same thing here. Attacking the press for being biased or 'unfair' is a lot different than attacking the press for making up basic facts, which it appears Trump is doing.

I truly find it terrifying that Trump wants to delegitimize the press. Having state-run media as our only source of information is literally an Orwellian dystopia. You probably think that sounds hysterical, and I'm not saying that will happen, but isn't that what Trump wants to happen if he could make it so? Why does this not alarm you?

It doesn't bother me because Trump doesn't have the power to delegitimize the press any more than they deserve. The problem isn't Trump. The problem is that the press already is illegitimate.

If the press was honest and centrist, Trumps attack on them would seem like whining and it wouldn't be effective. But since the press is clearly dishonest and biased, his attacks have merit and are supported by half of Americans and perhaps more. (Trump's poll numbers are much better than the media's.)

Honest question Nate: Could your perception of the press be driven in part by your own right leaning views?

Basically what I'm saying is one man's centrist is another man's far left/right kook.


My issue with Trump is in attacking the media he's giving himself an out not to answer ANY questions.

Well, my awareness of their bias is certainly influenced by my right leaning views.

Any attempt at objectively studying the press' bias always shows a massive left wing slant. If nothing else, the media's utter inability to identify and predict Trump's success is proof that they live in an ideological bubble.

It's as if the press is saying: "We're moderate centrists, the only problem is that half the electorate are right wing fringe kook extremists." Guess what? If half the people are to your extreme right, then you're not in the center.

[gtn130]

It doesn't bother me because Trump doesn't have the power to delegitimize the press any more than they deserve. The problem isn't Trump. The problem is that the press already is illegitimate.

If the press was honest and centrist, Trumps attack on them would seem like whining and it wouldn't be effective. But since the press is clearly dishonest and biased, his attacks have merit and are supported by half of Americans and perhaps more. (Trump's poll numbers are much better than the media's.)

Honest question Nate: Could your perception of the press be driven in part by your own right leaning views?

Basically what I'm saying is one man's centrist is another man's far left/right kook.


My issue with Trump is in attacking the media he's giving himself an out not to answer ANY questions.

Well, my awareness of their bias is certainly influenced by my right leaning views.

Any attempt at objectively studying the press' bias always shows a massive left wing slant. If nothing else, the media's utter inability to identify and predict Trump's success is proof that they live in an ideological bubble.

It's as if the press is saying: "We're moderate centrists, the only problem is that half the electorate are right wing fringe kook extremists." Guess what? If half the people are to your extreme right, then you're not in the center.

You keep referring to the election as evidence that the press, the markets, the polls were all so wrong about Trump because all of these leftists live in a bubble, but for forecasting models like 538, Hillary's lead had evaporated by election night. And if you followed the election at all on Twitter, Nate Silver was banging the drum about how everyone's models were way off on Hillary winning big. Point being that a lot of the election forecasting was wrong because people were bad at it - not because of their uncontrolled biases, generally speaking.

[payitforward]

Read on Twitter

I can decode this I think:

1. "it" (Trump campaign communication with Russian intelligence) exists -- is a fact.
2. "I" -- i.e. Donald Trump -- "had nothing to do with it" -- didn't communicate with Russian intelligence personally.

That seem about right?

Note that he doesn't say "I knew nothing about it." Or "I don't know anything about that." Does not saying either of those things mean anything? Or is it a liberal attack on him that he didn't say either of them?

Can anyone point to a source where he does say either of those things? If so, & if it comes out that the statement is a lie, is it an impeachable offense?

[bealwithit]

Read on Twitter

I can decode this I think:

1. "it" (Trump campaign communication with Russian intelligence) exists -- is a fact.
2. "I" -- i.e. Donald Trump -- "had nothing to do with it" -- didn't communicate with Russian intelligence personally.

That seem about right?

Note that he doesn't say "I knew nothing about it." Or "I don't know anything about that." Does not saying either of those things mean anything? Or is it a liberal attack on him that he didn't say either of them?

Can anyone point to a source where he does say either of those things? If so, & if it comes out that the statement is a lie, is it an impeachable offense?

We need investigations yesterday.

[payitforward]

It doesn't bother me because Trump doesn't have the power to delegitimize the press any more than they deserve. The problem isn't Trump. The problem is that the press already is illegitimate.

If the press was honest and centrist, Trumps attack on them would seem like whining and it wouldn't be effective. But since the press is clearly dishonest and biased, his attacks have merit and are supported by half of Americans and perhaps more. (Trump's poll numbers are much better than the media's.)

Honest question Nate: Could your perception of the press be driven in part by your own right leaning views?

Basically what I'm saying is one man's centrist is another man's far left/right kook.


My issue with Trump is in attacking the media he's giving himself an out not to answer ANY questions.

Well, my awareness of their bias is certainly influenced by my right leaning views.

Any attempt at objectively studying the press' bias always shows a massive left wing slant. If nothing else, the media's utter inability to identify and predict Trump's success is proof that they live in an ideological bubble.

It's as if the press is saying: "We're moderate centrists, the only problem is that half the electorate are right wing fringe kook extremists." Guess what? If half the people are to your extreme right, then you're not in the center.

If half the people are on your extreme right, then, for sure -- assuming the other half aren't on your extreme left! -- you can't be in the center.

But, of course, that's not correct. In a whole bunch of ways -- of which here are only the most obvious few:

1. Donald Trump didn't win the votes of "half the people". Unless those who didn't vote aren't people.
2. Donald Trump didn't win the votes of "half the people" who did vote! He came sort of close to that, though not super super squeaky close.
3. Not all the people who voted for Donald Trump are to "your extreme right," where "your" refers to the media. Not all of them are to the extreme right of anything that describes, lets say 85% of the populace (to pick a number... some large % anyway), as one can tell from
a) the fact that a sizable number of people who voted for Barack Obama in '08 voted for Donald Trump (on the assumption that you aren't putting Obama on the extreme right! ), and
b) people don't identify themselves in that way (i.e. as of any "extreme right") in numbers you need them to if you were looking for support for your position.
4. The media is a competitive business: media sources are looking for eyeballs (or whatever you prefer to call the metric), & as in most such industries they cluster close to one another in the place where most people are -- the center. It's no different from the fact that the place along the beach to put an ice cream stand is right at the center, & the place for a competitor to put the next ice cream stand is... right next to the first one!
5. The idea that the Washington Post, the NY Times, etc. are "extreme left publications" is canonical idiocy promoted by people so far right that pretty much everything not Breitbart, or more extreme than that, looks to them like the product of ideological "Leftists," of which btw there are few in the world any more since socialism, the defining term for the left, was a failure.

That, btw, is the key point. There is nothing remotely like a true "Left" in the US any more -- not at scale anyway. Remember all the people saying "Keep the government out of my Medicare" during the election? That should suffice to make my point.

[AFM]

THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM THE ELECTRIC CHAIR!

[bealwithit]

THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM THE ELECTRIC CHAIR!

[Mike Pence the Electric Fence]

You are my RealGM soulmate.

[payitforward]

...Trump doesn't have the power to delegitimize the press any more than they deserve. ...The problem is that the press already is illegitimate.

...the press is clearly dishonest and biased....

We have, in this country, what is referred to as "a free press." This means that the press is not run by the government, as it is for example in Russia & in China.

By "a free press," we also means that the government has only the most restricted ability to restrain or regulate the press. I.e. it can do so only in extreme circumstances such as war & only in a few ways (important ways) even in those situations.

That's what "a free press" means, nate. It doesn't mean a press that agrees with "me." Or with "the guy I like." Or with anyone in particular. It means a press that is free to cover events as it sees them. & of course by "press" in the current age we mean pretty much all media, not just printed media.

One result of having "a free press" is that a media source can take any political point of view it likes. For that reason, we have media that is identified as conservative & followed/trusted by people who identify themselves as conservative, & we have media that is identified as liberal & followed/trusted by people who identify themselves as liberal.

88% of people who are consistently conservative identify Fox as consistently conservative.
72% of people who are consistenly liberal identify NPR as consistently liberal.

Those are the highest numbers in either direction (as of '14 -- a Pew study). If you look at all the numbers for all major media sources, you get a bell-shaped curve -- i.e. a "normal" distribution. Remember now... this is how people polled classified & responded to these sources. I.e. it's not based on someone pre-defining the position of any media source.

That picture is very different from the one you paint, nate, or so it seems to me -- & I think would to most people. The specific difference is that you start with your conclusions: "the press... is illegitimate.... the press is clearly dishonest and biased." Once a person makes a set of conclusions into his premise, it's possible to justify just about any action.

1. It's possible to dismiss the truth because it comes from an "illegitimate" source.

2. It's possible to state that there really is no objective truth, just biased media shaping reality to fit their view.

3. It's possible to argue that those media sources should be eliminated, because their "lies" confuse people or make them less likely to listen the official line of those with whom I personally agree -- the only line that matters. Or which "I" am (i.e. a government is) putting out.

That last one is how media go from being "a free press" to being a controlled propaganda outlet. The "lite" version of that, of course, is the one you seem to practice -- at least it seems that way to me; perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, in which case please set me straight. In that version, anything whose source is a media outlet I don't like can be freely ignored, i.e. treated as if it doesn't exist or isn't true.

As I say, perhaps I interpret your words incorrectly. I'd be happy to be corrected if so, & I mean that sincerely. Please do correct me.

My greatest concern at your words, however, would be that if you really think the press is "illegitimate" you may also think that these "illegitimate" media outlets should be replaced with ones that are "legitimate", i.e. that aren't "biased" against the person in whom I believe (a lack of bias reflected in not questioning the truth of what he says).

I would be very happy to have that concern alleviated, nate -- no bs, I'm sincere. I ask you to please weigh in on this subject or tell me there's no reason to, because I've misinterpreted your words.

edit: on that last bit -- as I've written in other threads, I'm often wrong. In this case, I'd be happy to be wrong. Above all I mean to give you no slight, nor to ask you to "defend" anything, nor to clarify something I wouldn't also ask another person to clarify. I'm trying hard here, nate, I hope you can see/appreciate that.

[sfam]

I get where you are coming from - I voted for Hillary.

But as I watched this election cycle play out - I felt that she lost it more than Trump won.

And I watched two candidates with very low approval ratings compete. The Rs tried but couldn't block Trump. The Ds were complicit in Hillary's nomination.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - I put this on the Ds and Hillary - it was hers to win.

None of what you're saying refutes the impact Wikileaks + Comey had on the election. You want it one way, but it's the other way.

I understand what you are saying. That there was an affect from Wiki + Comey. I am not disregarding that effect.

What I am saying is - it was Hillary's to lose and she did just that... she controlled her destiny and ran a weak campaign (do you disagree?).

The Democratic party was complicit in shoe-horning her (a candidate with a negative approval rating, do you disagree?) as the candidate.

A weak candidate + a poor campaign = loss.

If the Ds hadn't hamstrung competition during the primary season - the Ds would mostly have the White House.

If Hillary hadn't stumbled badly during her campaign - the Ds would mostly have the White House.

Yes, it is a shame that events and mistruths have put Trump (an awful indivual) in as POTUS.

But, go back in our history - this has happened many times. We don't need to apologize to anyone outside of the US. What the Ds need to do is fix their problem. Otherwise we just end up with the "they are more evil than us" party and the cycle will continue (do you agree?).

Totally agree with everything here. With the exception of apologizing to those affected outside the US.

[sfam]

Dude...

Read on Twitter

"You do know all black people know each other, right?"

That's sorta what his incredibly disrespectful and bizarre request was implying. Looooney response to give to a reporter.

[sfam]

Truly a president for ALL Americans.
Give me a break.

Trump talks about Obama being the most divisive president ever and as Nate says he has no care about the 50%+ that disapprove.

I havent listened to his latest speaking but the fact that he answers questions about anitsemitism with how many electorates he beat Hillary by does tell me that he has a shallow ego.

Trump isn't going to play that game. He's not going to get up there and explain why he's NOT an anti-Semite. This is EXACTLY why the people hate the press and this is EXACTLY why Trump's attacks on the press earn him support from most people. But I'm not going to convince you. Fortunately, I don't have to.

Nate, just a real serious point on that. The question wasn't at all whether Trump was an anti-semite. It was whether he was concerned with an actual rise in anti-semitic behavior taking place in the country. This is like a simple question to hit out of the park, and he shied away from it.

Why is it "playing a game" to reassure a segment of the population that law enforcement also applies to anti-semitic behavior and that he rejects that type of events occurring? I live in Washington - that's like 70% of what Presidents from both parties do.

[dckingsfan]

@PIF

I thought your comments on the Press or 4th Estate were spot on. I think that the Press has leaned liberal in the past. But in the past, especially with the large news outlets, fact checking and due diligence was the norm.

But I would also argue that the "Press" now contains a wider spectra of views. Now, with faster news cycles, fact checking is much less the norm.

So, I find it interesting that as the press moves center it is the conservatives that are still claiming that they have an axe to grind and they try to pin the "fake news" on the liberal media.

Fascinating.

[sfam]

The DNC screwed Bernie and vastly influenced the primaries and the nomination to Hillary. Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock. Of course the Russians do dirty stuff. How many elections do you think the US intelligence community has influenced or affected? With all that, Trump is a disaster (didn't vote for him), he needs to exit stage right as quickly and gracefully as possible and let a relative grownup be President. Both parties need to get their acts together. The hyperbole of the Left is amusing, except for the fact there's enough truth there to be genuinely concerned for our country.

This is a far overstatement. The DNC was clearly on Hillary's side by Bernie's problem was with traditional democratic constituents. His far bigger barrier was not being taken seriously by nearly anyone in the press or elsewhere for a really long time. That wasn't controlled by the DNC.

The bigger concern is really for anyone outside the establishment - third parties. Would love to see viable options there.

[Wizardspride]

Dude...

Read on Twitter

"You do know all black people know each other, right?"

That's sorta what his incredibly disrespectful and bizarre request was implying. Looooney response to give to a reporter.

Well, this is a man who was referring to african-americans as "the blacks".......soooooo

Yeah.....

[sfam]

Watch on YouTube

What a horrible mess Trump has been stuck with. Lets review, shall we?

[bealwithit]