I like how theyre taking suggestive questioning to the next level. This is only gonna get better. Sucks to be you, America.
Still waiting on that information about the Russians hacking Hilary and the democrats, don't worry i'll wait for it. You guys have to understand that every dumb comment and biased article the news writes, the more and more Trump supporters they create. I've seen them attacking Trump for everything ranging from his bathrobe to his kids. The crazy part is nobody ever attacked Obama's family or really anything about him, and he will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. The truth is, the news is biased, outdated useless, divides the people and makes $$$ off of our suffering. The news used to be a reliable source of information, when they lost their moral compass is when people stopped believing what they say. Still waiting for the proof the Russians did it. At the rate Trump is going and slowly winning Americans over, and the rate at which the media is piling lie upon lie, we may never see another democrat in the United States history.
he's saying once US history is complete, he'd not be surprised if there was no other dem president following obama almost there, so he may be right : ^ )
@super71 Would you rather the media wasn't free to say what it wants about politicians? To insult them? To be unfair, partisan, biased? Because I'd like to know what your vision for a government-press relationship is.
This is dead on, and I'd like to like your post for it, but... Obama got attacked for a lot of things (and his wife was often disparaged even being accused of being a trans and stuff, though his kids were left alone AFAIK), not as much as Trump I'm sure, and the media undoubtedly gave him more of a pass than they should on things like Operation Fast and Furious. But when you say things like this you're doing what the media does for Trump for Obama. If you were going for the contextual "mainstream media" "alphabet media" than A) You'd still have to exclude FOX and B) you'd need to narrow your term from "nobody" to "nobody in..." or something.
difference would be except for ... Baron? Trump's kids are adults murdering animals, being ******** and running their fathers businesses and Obama had a couple of little girls?
I'm not Super, so I can't answer for him; and obviously I have concerns about Trump he doesn't share, however: 1. I'd like the news media to not be able to get funding from the Pentagon or State Department or any Intelligence Agency. They shouldn't have "behavior-placement" ads or get paid to have some Pentagon or governmental official come in and write stories for them. (Examples of this mostly came out from Bush Jr. but I doubt that admin. was the only one to do so). 2. I'd like the TV media to be owned by more than 6 companies. If the government is going to get involved it should be to ease regulation to help new media companies grow, or to use anti-Trust laws to help break it up/keep it from absorbing new media, so it's not just an oligarchy of opinion but actually diverse. 3. I'd like for the government to not sign bills to allow domestic propaganda. Separately (two different bills, both signed by Obama), I'd like for the government to not throw millions into the State Department to have the CIA determine what is "fake news" and thus what can be "eligible" for at least soft censorship programs. I'm sure even people not concerned about what Trump could do with things as they are in the long run (after getting his administration in order and replacing the old guard which seems to be working against him with pro-Trump people) would be concerned about those things.
people went after obama's kids, but so far as i know it was always private citizens- a journalist going after them is, so far as i'm aware, completely unheard of minus that bit where someone was tracking what festivals or whatever the older girl was going to going after baron (barron?) was disgusting, ridiculous, and pointless at best. going after trump's adult children is reasonable so long as they're actually, you know, doing shitty stuff. it seems they're all somewhat affiliated with the administration, but i don't know the actual lines there
i get the impression that ohmin is more playing devil's advocate for a movement he feels some sympathy towards. i doubt that he's particularly supportive of trump as a person or as a leader also fwiw while i'm pretty sure that when you say MP you mean members of parliament, in an american context it's more likely to mean military personnel (so far as i know). so what you ended with can sound somewhat redundant
I think that any leader that seeks to GENERALLY de-legitimize criticisms of his words and actions is a problem at a fundamental level. That said, I do think this "anti-media" thing was always Trump/Bannon's end game... anyone remember TrumpTV?
They attacked Obama but for how long, and was it major media outlets or just random ass people that don't matter ? Trump is attacked by mass media on the daily, a lot of it is deserved but when I see them attacking all of his kids it gets a bit out of hand. Fox has even attacked Trump a few times, not as much as other news outlets though.
I don't mind them saying things about politicians especially since politicians deserve it most, what I don't like is the double standards of how the media attacks Trump and how they attacked Obama. Also I wouldn't mind the press as much if they ever backed anything up, still waiting for that proof on the big bad Russians.
depends on who you're talking about. the left leaning news outlets tended to be softer on obama, whereas the right, especially in fox news but i assume also everywhere else, never really stopped going at him which would sound more reasonable if the two were actually equivalent in some way beyond both getting elected president.
Generally, my stance has been that Trump's actions and attitude on certain points are most definitely a problem. Especially the misinformation he or his staff puts out, and most especially his seeming prior desire to "make torture great again" are definite problems. Last I heard he seemed to be backing off the torture thing now that he's in office so maybe that's a good thing, or maybe he's just getting that word out to avoid investigation, I dunno. He's going through with that stupid Wall idea so your guess is as good as mine. His seeming inability to take earnest and accurate criticism is obviously an issue. At the same time, not all criticisms about him are legit, and in spite of that being public knowledge, they often get repeated, same way you've got the "Birther" accusations that got repeated over and over against Obama, but different outlets and voices. This isn't about wanting to defend Trump. It's about pointing out that some high profile media outlets aren't much better than Trump or Spicer (if at all) when it comes to having their facts checked before running a story, and that the CIA especially (and some other Agencies) have been spouting this same tired line about Russian conspiracies without showing any solid evidence of it whatsoever. These actions, especially the latter, are just as troubling to me as Trump's are. That doesn't mean I suddenly like Trump for calling out some of them. Likewise I'm not suddenly going to like CNN or the IC for going after Trump. Basically it means I view Trump as "a" problem rather than "the" problem. Plus some "devilish advocacy" as @Dagda mentioned.
for my edification, though- who decides what the CIA releases when it would pertain to something as serious as an elected president being owned by another country? or when it would be anything that strongly political? i'm pretty unfamiliar with their systems, my baseline assumption was that the CIA wasn't really used to talking to the american public at all this isn't to say that trump *is* owned by another country, this is just to wonder what would actually happen if irrefutable proof was found
we all are but don't expect anything soon 'cause I don't think Trump gov is going to invest themselves this early on if at all.
Mate, it's a forum on a computer game, in a thread about politics. The whole point of it is for people - whoever they are - to be able to talk about what they think, and be armchair politicians in an enjoyable way (whatever that means to people). It's not a paper published in an academic context that requires qualifications - if you feel people are too below you here, do us a favour and go and find a forum where you can insult better qualified people.
About the "a vs the problem" I feel like Trump is the common denominator here. Press/IC/whoever acted so very radically under other presidents, especially not since day 1 in the presidency. Trump has been kicking everyone against the chins since he started his campaign. At some point people get tired of it. Trump only knows how to blame others and deflect instead of properly explaining an argument. We're talking about the guy who answers a question with made up statistics (seriously, "best victory since Raegan, google down the last months?) or with "but Hillary Clinton". That stuff is awesome in a campaign because primaries don't require you to have actual policy. Nobody really grills you on it and you can get away with vague answers and "but we'll be totally lay it out for you once were in the white house". Except when you don't. On all accounts, Trump is a horrible human being and in the makings, if not already, of a really really terrible president. The climate he is creating for his far right supporters is not a laughing matter to me anymore, he's legitimately got all the traits of an authoritarian. He mentioned on inauguration day he's gonna run in 2020. Only allows the press that is nice to him (read: far right nutjobs as Breitbart or Infowars), during the press conference was "looking for a nice question". Just face it, not only is the US election system broken, so is the mentality concerning politics in the US.
