Also, how was everyone against "ermegerd hillary so corrupt" (and they are right) but are now okay with Trump renting out Trump Tower to the US Pentagon? Or how diplomats and others are officially staying in Trump Tower. I thought everyone hated corruption, where did that train go?
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-media-accountability-survey-democrats-liberals/ Trump is now saying the results are rigged because... democrats are rigging his own survey. Only Republicans should be allowed to take his quality survey. It's so borderline hilarious, but then you forget this isn't a sketch and this is the president of the US and his team.
I think we have to acknowledge (and I think what @Ohmin may have been getting at) is that 'the media' is at a turning point with or without Trump. You could even go so far as to say Trump is a result of the media crisis. The old system being that a few, well funded and usually well regulated, state or private organisations controlled what people heard and saw. There was a restricted but coherent national narrative and people were comfortable with basic 'truths' about the world (who their friends are, enemies are, what is good and bad). Now we have new internet based media - facebook, youtube, forums, more specialised news pages that cater to a greater number of political viewpoints, which can be extreme (in comparison to those of old) and is global as opposed to national. The trouble is that while new media can effectively provide counter narratives to the biases and misinformation of mainstream news, it is also has vastly more freedom to be biased and misinformative itself. If you remove regulation, and make it solely a matter of commercialism, then the ultimate measure of reporting is not what is true or false but what makes the reader feel good. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, what makes people feel good is often scapegoating, scaremongering, telling them they are better than 'the other', and that all their prejudices and biases are righteous.
Fair point. Nobody regulates twitter. Also, there was somewhat of a "consumer regulation" before, as in, if you'd make too much stuff up people could complain about you and your sales might drop. Nobody is selling (in the vendor sense of the word) anything on new media except their own narrative. Then again, outlets like Fox News who run completely bogus stories 24/7 for months were big as can be in the US. It's like Trump took all the things a certain group of Americans liked and just ran full force with it. And all the people that have been slowly but steadily eating the garbage got hooked to a point where they can now up their dose for free from Trump instead.
Astamir are you ok? You should probably go visit a doctor and a psychiatrist. I am sure its not too late yet.
I can only speak for myself, but I find it really interesting learning how people from the rightwing think, and what narratives they follow. I also think it's going to be really important in coming years to be able to understand them, and to be able to break through the indoctrination. I also think the rightwing message, in europe and the US, is so successful at polarising people into the state you mentioned because it has a nucleus of legitimate grievance to it that has been hushed down for a long time. It builds a mountain of bullshit around that nucleus, but still.
im sure youve heard about this from the mainstream media who bash trump every opportunity http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/19/trump-refers-non-existent-refugee-incident-sweden-rally/ only one paper in the uk publishes these kind of truths http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...d-breaking-point-unprecedented-violence-crime
I'm curious why you think the first story is untrue and the second is a true reflection of reality. The Telegraph being a respected right leaning broadsheet with a history of investigative journalism, and the express being a rightwing tabloid that focuses on, along with sensationalist anti immigrant stuff, celebrity boobies. What is it about these two sources exactly that leads you to think that the second is most reliable.
In november 2016 Last I checked that was not two days ago, as Trump said. Hence why he's getting flack for being incorrect. Feel free to correct me on this if I'm missing something.
look im not saying that the daily express and their sunday edition and the sun and daily mail are like the fox news of england but they did side with germany during the anti-n@zi boycott in 1933 Spoiler so since what they report contradicts Swedens own data from their statistics bureau I am going to go with "fake news" sadly you and Trump don't care that the facts are made up.
I like your post, but I'm not 100% sure I agree with this conclusion. Unless you count Twitter regulating it's customers, though given the context I doubt that's what you meant. There is Infowars, with it's line of Health, Food, and personal Defense products. On the other hand it's actually doing quite well (arguably bigger than some mainstream outlets in terms of viewership and seems to be consistently trying to expand), which is why I can't 100% disagree with Badgerale even if I don't 100% agree. In terms of click-bait nonsense and the like Infowars has gotten much worse since it officially threw in with Trump. (Speaking of, I'll probably respond to your "common denominator" point at a later time. Look forward to it? Or something )
So "Common Denominators"... "A" Problem vs. "The" Problem. The problem I have with "The" Problem is that it makes it the only problem (or at least the only noteworthy one). While I can't prove it definitively, it seems far more likely that the CIA is lying about Russia's involvement regarding the leaks than them telling the truth. I won't go into it in full detail here because I've already been over it and I'm pretty sure people have read that (anyone new... have fun looking at other threads on the topic?). "Trump is corrupt so it's plausible" is the only sort of realistic argument I've heard to support the CIA's narrative. The CIA has a history of lying as well after all (as does the NSA and other intelligence agencies, including under oath and to Congress, sadly not a recent development in the wake of the Bill Clinton precedent). The "Gulf of Tonkin" was a fabrication, used to get the US involved in the Vietnam War... one of the most pointless (in terms of results) wars ever waged by the US, with intentional handicaps built into the war to ensure that victory would essentially never be possible. The CIA also supported Bush Jr.'s narratives to go into Iraq. Related: there were several reports by soldiers talking about how they were then protecting the poppy fields... and Afghanistan being one of the main regions to focus on opiate production was also allegedly set up by the CIA. There has been absolutely no sign that the CIA or the NSA (which also lied about domestic surveillance much more recently) has made any significant changes to it's MO, to no longer being willing to deceive the American populace in order to service political and military agendas for the people that put them into power. Now, eventually, Trump might make some headway in terms of winning over or replacing those organizations to be loyal to him. And they'll still be just as willing to lie to the American people. Obviously that's a problem. But it isn't the only problem. I'm sure you all noticed when Bush Jr. was in office, and it was clear that his administration had, with his or at least Cheney's knowledge, tacitly authorized torture... only a handful of Congressmen even tried to impeach him. When it became clear that Rumsfeld and Powers lied to invade Iraq... only a handful of Congressmen even tried to do anything about it (generally the same ones). But they were also generally the "fringe" of their respective parties. They were shut down by the establishment, but a Congress without the political will to not only do the right thing, but even take the opportunity to reassert the power of the Legislative Branch. They wouldn't even do it for selfish reasons. Also it seems that the media (had been) willing to often give a pass for many things, more so for Democrats (left media bias, expected and not REALLY a big issue). If there's been one good thing out of Trump it is that most of the media is much more willing to question the administration on it's BS... it's just a shame that it's still partisan and they don't always stick to reality. I mentioned before that the media has been out outlet for the Pentagon and intelligence agencies and general propaganda (now officially allowed, hurray!). Since when did you guys stop attacking that BS? Did you think it had stopped under Obama? Did you guys forget Fast and Furious (not the movies, bad as they usually were I can't blame his admin for them)? the assassinations (including of US citizens) without warrant? that fake "situation room" photo from when they supposedly killed Osama? lying about what caused the attack in Benghazi? later regime change in Libya? Syria? I know Obama near the end of his term made a statement to the effect that he had an administration without controversy or scandal or something... but I thought we were all decidedly against people who reject facts and use bald-faced lies to try and make themselves look better? He's not as bad for it as Trump but... Trump is a lying narcissistic blowhard (who may be incompetent and/or have [somewhat understandable all things considered] mistrust of people and agencies that are critical to being able to do his job well). That much is clear and it is a problem, though it wouldn't be the first time for a President. He might still be the worst in terms of scale. Is he a conspirator and Russian Collaborator? Possibly but all available evidence points to no. Yet despite that the CIA and the Media continues to run with it. Pushing a lot of out smoke but never showing a fire. That is also a problem. And I'd bet it's a problem that would exist even if Trump didn't get into office. As long as Wikileaks was going to publish those documents, the CIA was almost always going to blame Russia (and even if that didn't happen there would still be a march of Propaganda across the West to raise tensions and set us towards a cold war, because everyone had so much fun with that and we need to switch out enemies now and then). It fits Clinton's narrative regardless of who she ended up running against (and her bid for the Dem. nomination was clearly rigged from the beginning)... *Not implying Clinton is somehow the mastermind or anything.* Even on minor issues, if and when the media or someone else critical of Trump gets something wrong, it helps Trump. That might change in the future, his furious denials could easily come back to bite him more than the falsehoods of others help him... but for now the best way to help win over Trump supporters (where possible) is to avoid being able to be categorized as "fake news"... or "enemy of the people" I guess now in some cases (FFS). TL;DR: When you've got a gang, it's a problem. They hold down and oppress people. When a new gang comes in and starts fighting, that's also a problem... often a bigger problem. It doesn't mean the old gang stops being a problem. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Especially when their tactics in fighting each other means that the innocents, and in this case especially the truth, are among the first casualties. Anyway, this post went through some thought and revisions, hopefully it's good enough, probably last post I'll make on this within this thread at least. I'd originally thought about pointing out some logical fallacies in some of people's arguments... but I don't think it's that important really. Besides I'm sure I've made plenty of my own through my posts.
Seems like it's the other way around to me. Possibly and all available evidence points to yes. Despite the administration's protests, we continue to find more and more smoke. Sure, there's no fire yet, but there is sure a hella lot of smoke - so something is probably on fire.
Another big problem is that now it's acceptable to just claim that people are "paid protestors" if you don't like their message. That's apparently the goto now for conservatives who do town halls in blue districts and then suggest that the angry people are paid to be there. These are supposed to the people's representatives, and they are calling their constituents "fake." I think we've officially entered into the "no win" part of the game, because anything can now be dismissed.
as Sok says; where there is smoke and a smoke alarm is going off you should probably evacuate the premise, call the fire departement and find the cause. doesn't mean there is a fire. but ignoring it seems stupid.
So saw some part of a Fox news program (Tucker Carlson Tonight ) where they had a swedish (liberal/leftwing) newsreporter from Expressen. where she said his facts are just wrong. But today that same newspaper publishes a professor saying fox news was correct with the numbers (in a way). Now if a 13% increase in rapecrimes from 2015-2016 is because of a immigration is kinda impossible to answer from the statistics since sweden dont keep such statistics since 2001(?), ethniticy, race, country aint allowed to be saved by authority. it must be very frustrating/annoying to be a professor and knowing that the numbers you are getting is just telling a little bit of the story. Shootings, "heavycrime" rate is also increasing. Btw handgrenades is still not considered a weapon in sweden, so its better to carry handgrenades then daggers for criminals. sorry iam not kidding. they are working on changing the law since 2010 though, so soon carrying handgrenades is out of the question. (its not legal to carry, its just not considered to be a weapon so the possible punishment is much lower, thats why so "many" attacks with handgrenades, both vs other gangs and the police) its still very rare with shootings/murder in sweden compaired to some states in USA Police shootings in sweden is around 20 per year, against person or vehicles in 2015 there was 2 that died from police shootings. (https://polisen.se/Om-polisen/Sa-ar...vapen/Hur-ofta-anvander-polisen-skjutvapen--/) Compaired to 963 in usa (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2016/) But this trump reality show is just to fun to stop watching, never been this intrested in MSM or politics before
Handgrenades not considered weapons is amazing, so it is considered just an explosive or something and so still illegal but not as bad as a weapon? can you expand upon the "in a way" from the professor of something?
