I know lots of people feel Sanders was robbed, but I actually believe otherwise. I like the guy, he's the closest politician to my political spectrum, but all the DNC/media stuff... I don't actually think Sanders really had a chance. Too many of the old guard in the US even on the left still have too much of a stigma against communism/socialism on the level that Sanders represents. At the same time, this was always the GOP's election to lose as I have said many times. That said, do I wish that Sanders could have run for President without the DNC and had a shot? Sure. What? In what way has BLM protests been "literally unreported?" You mean this? http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/us/black-lives-matter-protests/
My memory failed me it could have been MSNBC but the point was that alot of the times the focus of the majority of the media seems to be away from the actual problem and more on who to blame and personalising the issue. There was a poll about how much the public trusted the news outlets whether it was MSNBC, Fox news or there wise and like pyro said the number speak for themselves
On a related note, I can guess, but what do you think of allegations that Twitter is curating Trump's account to ensure that negative responses get more views/attention?
I have been discussing Trump with some supporters of his recently, and part of what comes out is that they feel Trump just wants to be treated with respect and that the IC and the media haven't respected him. My counter to that is he hasn't EARNED any respect. His words and actions actually lose him respect, IMO, especially when he reacts like a man-child to everything. And of course, let's not forget he himself is constantly disrespecting people and things. Almost all his speeches are him bragging about himself. Introducing Pence as his running mate? Talks about himself. Black History Month? Oh, let's talk about how he did so great with black voters (he didn't) and how ONE journalist got something wrong and retracted his story for half the speech. Talks about the military and says he doesn't like people who have been captured and claims he's sacrificed as much as people who went to war. Goes to the CIA to make a speech at the memorial wall and... talks about himself a bunch, and blames the media instead of taking responsibility for any of the things he said about the IC. Says stuff like this with intelligence in quotes: Then 2 weeks later: It's so transparent and stupid. I mean, he's basically insulting them to their face by saying this.
Remind me of all the times the other Presidents weren't largely following the same pro-IC, pro-Regime Change, pro-War policies in recent memory. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying I support Trump's policies in this regard, but there are some significant departures that never manifested in the past Bush/Clinton/Obama regimes. Not necessarily good ones but certainly different.)
Irrelevant, that and the whole "but they pay to troll his account". Irrelevant. Don't spout ignorant and insulting garbage all over the internet if you don't want to be criticized. Even more so if you're the President. EVEN MORE SO if you're a polarizing bully
I'm sorry, did you miss the "we should go after their families" and "we should fight fire with fire" and "torture works, we should do worse than waterboarding" during the campaign? Are you cherrypicking to delude yourself that Trump is somehow a pacifist?
I am far more concerned about the reports that says Trump doesn't read reports, only wants one page briefings with bullet points, and possibly doesn't even read the EOs that he has signed. Maybe it's not true, but it is consistent with what we have seen. For example, have you seen the deposition in his lawsuit? He basically goes out of his way to avoid reading anything even when he's asked to do so during a deposition.
I disagree. Sanders also represented a large departure from the establishment (in a different direction) like Trump did. While I'm sure there's many that would resist because "socialism is inherently evil" or some other biased ignorant tripe, I think that people wanting a significant change would have given him a solid chance even against Trump. I think it would have been a better chance than HRC at least. He might not have still won perhaps but... Then again, I'm "optimistic."
Untrue! False! Shame! If that were the case, Trump would still be incredibly misinformed on pretty much everything ever! Don't you remember that one time where you... uhm... talked about substance and didn't contradict himself! Please, so biased.
At this point, ideology aside, Trump is someone whom I have serious doubts about his competency/fit for almost ANY job. If he was a co-worker, I'd be getting as far away from his possible and hope I am not asked to make him for his slack. If he was an underling, he'd be fired or at least under review. If he was someone being interviewed, he wouldn't get past the first guy. I mean, I imagine he'd be the guy who came in and doesn't even know what your company does.
He really wasn't anywhere close enough on any of the metrics. Could we have been closer if the media was more helpful? Sure, but Clinton had so much momentum going into this whole thing I don't think it's reasonable to feel Sanders could have done anything. Lastly, we don't know what would have happened if Sanders was the nominee vs Trump - there's plenty of angles to attack Sanders on - some of the stuff from his past is not exactly flattering and he doesn't have Trump's "I don't care about anything" skin that everything slides off of. Sanders' supporters actually care about his character. I also think Sanders lost momentum when he started showing he really had little in his campaign other than 2 or 3 standard talking points - every answer he gave pivots back to 2 or 3 things. I know many Democrats/Liberals who were initially excited but got bored/annoyed with that.
No. But the target is different. The agenda. Those statements are the biggest problem I personally have with Trump, but there's no doubt that going after ISIS and making nice with Russia (and to a lesser extent Syria) rather than supporting "moderate" rebels in Syria or blaming Russia for everything wrong with the world is a huge directional shift. As is the receding from globalism and promotion of relative isolationist and nationalist policy. I never said he was? It's not like "pro war" and "anti war" are the only two modes a person can possibly have that differ from each other on that front.
Just curious. What idea would scare you more, that he is actually incompetent like you think, or that he is actually very competent and his actions are calculated?
Then what's the exact terms we should be using? Being the populist that he is, he has been super against Iraq war, but at the same time suggested everything Bush and Cheney have done 16 years ago. not too sure, probably incompetence only because I (and surely, a big fact of ignorance on my part in play here) I don't see his endgame in planning this all along. If he wants to be a dictator and somehow set it up like this, it's most likely the same as being the ignorant bully with too much power, at least when competent he might not randomly do something really really dumb under pressure cause he doesn't seem to react well when attacked or when under pressure, so I don't wanna know what spur of the moment calls he's gonna make once that reaches a boiling point
That's he's incompetent like I think. But I am not sure if that's really a fair question because there are 2 classes of things going on. The stuff I am REALLY concerned about isn't about calculation. Either he has an intellectual curiosity and takes his work seriously or he doesn't - and all signs point to the latter. When he'd rather watch news about himself than read reports about the decisions he has to make - that's not a calculation vs incompetency thing to my mind. There's certainly some stuff that I think he's been quite good at doing, but that's pretty separate from the stuff that actually concerns me. Remember that before the election I had indicated that I wasn't too concerned about him being elected, because I felt that even tho I disagreed with him ideologically, it is both 1) expected that sometimes that's the case, and 2) that I didn't think he'd do any real, lasting harm. Well, I am much more concerned about 2) now, because it appears to me that he makes rash and reckless decisions while not bothering to inform himself and THAT is dangerous, no matter what his ideology and goals might be.
He's already gotten a Navy SEAL and a bunch of civilians killed after authorizing a raid that as far as we are told, was not authorized during Obama's tenure due to lack of intelligence (given his feud with the IC, I can imagine a scenario where Trump said, "what do they know? let's do this thing!"). This is not to say that people weren't killed under Obama or any other President, but the thing is that by all indications this seemed like a completely avoidable one and the WH has the audacity to say it was a "success?"
