|
Post by gardengoddess on Aug 24, 2017 3:21:54 GMT
What is your obsession about Trump and his every single move? Feel free to not click on the thread if you feel that way. It's super duper easy, otherwise you look like you're just want to take a swipe at the poster and stir the pot.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 19:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 4:15:44 GMT
I swear... sometimes I feel like he became President just to irk the HELL out of me daily! I can't stand his verbage, his mannerisms.... EVERYTHING about him. Never have I felt such anger and hatred towards a person like I do with him. I can sense pure stupidity + evil. I want to see him called out for everything and then have him suffer the consequences, soon!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 19:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 15:39:16 GMT
And just like in a dictatorship, Trump et al think the role of the media is to glorify the leader vs. telling the stories and presenting the facts. They don't just present the facts though. The media makes sure to give his words the most obnoxious interpretation imaginable, then they pretend that what they said he said, is what he really said and too many people believe the interpretation and run with it. Then the twisted version gets repeated so often people start to believe it as fact. Instead of actually listening to him and making up their own mind, far too many let the media tell them what to think about what he says. Far too many in the media think this is their job. There's a reason people keep saying journalism is dead. They've ditched journalism in favor of activism.
|
|
|
Post by pb on Aug 24, 2017 16:14:30 GMT
And just like in a dictatorship, Trump et al think the role of the media is to glorify the leader vs. telling the stories and presenting the facts. They don't just present the facts though. The media makes sure to give his words the most obnoxious interpretation imaginable, then they pretend that what they said he said, is what he really said and too many people believe the interpretation and run with it. Then the twisted version gets repeated so often people start to believe it as fact. Instead of actually listening to him and making up their own mind, far too many let the media tell them what to think about what he says. Far too many in the media think this is their job. There's a reason people keep saying journalism is dead. They've ditched journalism in favor of activism. Many of us read the actual transcripts of his words and increasingly I see the media read direct quotes of the president. I don't think his words are getting twisted when it comes from the President himself. Case in point, technically, in Phoenix, the President quoted his statements on Charlottesville correctly but he left out the part if the sentence that caused most of the commotion. The media then showed the President in Phoenix and then quoted the entirety of his original statements. That is what journalists are suppose to do.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Aug 24, 2017 16:50:16 GMT
And just like in a dictatorship, Trump et al think the role of the media is to glorify the leader vs. telling the stories and presenting the facts. They don't just present the facts though. The media makes sure to give his words the most obnoxious interpretation imaginable, then they pretend that what they said he said, is what he really said and too many people believe the interpretation and run with it. Then the twisted version gets repeated so often people start to believe it as fact. Instead of actually listening to him and making up their own mind, far too many let the media tell them what to think about what he says. Far too many in the media think this is their job. There's a reason people keep saying journalism is dead. They've ditched journalism in favor of activism. I listen to his crap directly, I don't watch cable news programs to get my news. If I can't watch it directly I can usually find the transcript online.
|
|
|
Post by pierogi on Aug 24, 2017 17:10:30 GMT
For a long time, DJT has been accusing the Democrats and the left of having paid demonstrators and supporters. "Believe me" if he is saying someone else does it, I am suspicious of what HIS side is doing. Bingo. Everything he accused/accuses Hillary, the Democratic Party, the media, etc, of doing: it's come out on his end. Lock him up.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 19:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 17:31:34 GMT
They don't just present the facts though. The media makes sure to give his words the most obnoxious interpretation imaginable, then they pretend that what they said he said, is what he really said and too many people believe the interpretation and run with it. Then the twisted version gets repeated so often people start to believe it as fact. Instead of actually listening to him and making up their own mind, far too many let the media tell them what to think about what he says. Far too many in the media think this is their job. There's a reason people keep saying journalism is dead. They've ditched journalism in favor of activism. Many of us read the actual transcripts of his words and increasingly I see the media read direct quotes of the president. I don't think his words are getting twisted when it comes from the President himself. Case in point, technically, in Phoenix, the President quoted his statements on Charlottesville correctly but he left out the part if the sentence that caused most of the commotion. The media then showed the President in Phoenix and then quoted the entirety of his original statements. That is what journalists are suppose to do. Then they continually report that he supports racists and refused to denounce the required denouncement of the moment and often reality just doesn't support the commentary.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Aug 24, 2017 17:40:42 GMT
And just like in a dictatorship, Trump et al think the role of the media is to glorify the leader vs. telling the stories and presenting the facts. They don't just present the facts though. The media makes sure to give his words the most obnoxious interpretation imaginable, then they pretend that what they said he said, is what he really said and too many people believe the interpretation and run with it. Then the twisted version gets repeated so often people start to believe it as fact. Instead of actually listening to him and making up their own mind, far too many let the media tell them what to think about what he says. Far too many in the media think this is their job. There's a reason people keep saying journalism is dead. They've ditched journalism in favor of activism. Why do people who think like you work so hard to blame trumps idiocy on everyone but him and the administration that enables him? I really, really don't get it. If Democrats were doing the disgusting things that the republicans are, I would be front and center resisting every damn thing they were trying to do. I have absolutely no loyalty to any political party. My loyalty is to this country and my fellow citizens.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 19:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 17:42:15 GMT
They don't just present the facts though. The media makes sure to give his words the most obnoxious interpretation imaginable, then they pretend that what they said he said, is what he really said and too many people believe the interpretation and run with it. Then the twisted version gets repeated so often people start to believe it as fact. Instead of actually listening to him and making up their own mind, far too many let the media tell them what to think about what he says. Far too many in the media think this is their job. There's a reason people keep saying journalism is dead. They've ditched journalism in favor of activism. I listen to his crap directly, I don't watch cable news programs to get my news. If I can't watch it directly I can tell squally find the transcript online. I'm not saying everything he says is right and true or even makes sense half the time, or that you should agree with him, but add to that the journalists who aren't suppose to give their opinion, giving their version of what he said as opposed to what he did say and it only adds fuel to the fire. Gerard Baker, the editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 24, 2017 17:52:42 GMT
Many of us read the actual transcripts of his words and increasingly I see the media read direct quotes of the president. I don't think his words are getting twisted when it comes from the President himself. Case in point, technically, in Phoenix, the President quoted his statements on Charlottesville correctly but he left out the part if the sentence that caused most of the commotion. The media then showed the President in Phoenix and then quoted the entirety of his original statements. That is what journalists are suppose to do. Then they continually report that he supports racists and refused to denounce the required denouncement of the moment and often reality just doesn't support the commentary. Again, context matters. How long did it take him to denounce David Duke during the campaign? And then clearly he lied about it (as evidenced by your video) saying that he didn't know who David duke was (when he has made reference to him in the past). As for Charlottesville...if white supremacists were marching in your name, and were on record of bringing your name into it and saying that they wanted to fulfill your promises...would you say, "that is not what I stand for!" I know I sure would. There is no limit to the amount of times he should be denouncing the kkk and nazis. He is quick to denounce Muslim terrorists. He doesn't say, "well, Ive already denounced them so I don't need to do it again". He jumps on it and takes the opportunity to make threats against Muslims. Why? Because it fits his agenda. But yet he takes days to respond about white supremacists. Why do you think that is? And when he does denounce them it is because others told him to, which is obvious if you listened to what he said initially, then what he said on Monday and Tuesday of that week. It is easy to see how he really feels, and that he does not want to turn away his base of deplorables. He says just enough that it will satisfy people that don't want to admit that they voted for a racist but that he still lets his true feelings be known. And that is why you have white supremacists saying they are happy with how he responded. Doesn't that concern you at all?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 19:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 18:13:44 GMT
Then they continually report that he supports racists and refused to denounce the required denouncement of the moment and often reality just doesn't support the commentary. Again, context matters. How long did it take him to denounce David Duke during the campaign? And then clearly he lied about it (as evidenced by your video) saying that he didn't know who David duke was (when he has made reference to him in the past). As for Charlottesville...if white supremacists were marching in your name, and were on record of bringing your name into it and saying that they wanted to fulfill your promises...would you say, "that is not what I stand for!" I know I sure would. There is no limit to the amount of times he should be denouncing the kkk and nazis. He is quick to denounce Muslim terrorists. He doesn't say, "well, Ive already denounced them so I don't need to do it again". He jumps on it and takes the opportunity to make threats against Muslims. Why? Because it fits his agenda. But yet he takes days to respond about white supremacists. Why do you think that is? And when he does denounce them it is because others told him to, which is obvious if you listened to what he said initially, then what he said on Monday and Tuesday of that week. It is easy to see how he really feels, and that he does not want to turn away his base of deplorables. He says just enough that it will satisfy people that don't want to admit that they voted for a racist but that he still lets his true feelings be known. And that is why you have white supremacists saying they are happy with how he responded. Doesn't that concern you at all? This is the perfect example. He did not say he doesn't know who David Duke is, but that's what you've decided he said. It doesn't help that he's inarticulate and says things that occasionally can be interpreted incorrectly, but he did not say he doesn't know who he is, he speaking about the issue of being endorsed by him since he didn't actually endorse him and his confusion as to how it relates himself to white supremacy. As to why it takes him days to respond, it may have something to do with the job as that was a common complaint about the last president.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,978
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Aug 24, 2017 18:15:36 GMT
There is a difference between a reporter and newstertainment personalities. Maggie Haberman = reporter. Mika & Joe = entertainers on a current events political show. It's further complicated because reporters like Maggie Haberman can and do have a voice/opinion indpendent of the stories they publish. It's up to us as consumers of different types of media to differentiate. Our lack of discernment is not the responsibility of actual news organizations and journalists doing solid work.
It is MY opinion that over the last year, the editor of the WSJ has demonstrated his own biases in directing his reporters what to cover and how to cover it; YMMV.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 19:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 18:28:18 GMT
There is a difference between a reporter and newstertainment personalities. Maggie Haberman = reporter. Mika & Joe = entertainers on a current events political show. It's further complicated because reporters like Maggie Haberman can and do have a voice/opinion indpendent of the stories they publish. It's up to us as consumers of different types of media to differentiate. Our lack of discernment is not the responsibility of actual news organizations and journalists doing solid work. It is MY opinion that over the last year, the editor of the WSJ has demonstrated his own biases in directing his reporters what to cover and how to cover it; YMMV. If only it were just the newstainment personalities giving their opinion in the stories they cover.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 24, 2017 18:32:58 GMT
Again, context matters. How long did it take him to denounce David Duke during the campaign? And then clearly he lied about it (as evidenced by your video) saying that he didn't know who David duke was (when he has made reference to him in the past). As for Charlottesville...if white supremacists were marching in your name, and were on record of bringing your name into it and saying that they wanted to fulfill your promises...would you say, "that is not what I stand for!" I know I sure would. There is no limit to the amount of times he should be denouncing the kkk and nazis. He is quick to denounce Muslim terrorists. He doesn't say, "well, Ive already denounced them so I don't need to do it again". He jumps on it and takes the opportunity to make threats against Muslims. Why? Because it fits his agenda. But yet he takes days to respond about white supremacists. Why do you think that is? And when he does denounce them it is because others told him to, which is obvious if you listened to what he said initially, then what he said on Monday and Tuesday of that week. It is easy to see how he really feels, and that he does not want to turn away his base of deplorables. He says just enough that it will satisfy people that don't want to admit that they voted for a racist but that he still lets his true feelings be known. And that is why you have white supremacists saying they are happy with how he responded. Doesn't that concern you at all? This is the perfect example. He did not say he doesn't know who David Duke is, but that's what you've decided he said. It doesn't help that he's inarticulate and says things that occasionally can be interpreted incorrectly, but he did not say he doesn't know who he is, he speaking about the issue of being endorsed by him since he didn't actually endorse him and his confusion as to how it relates himself to white supremacy. As to why it takes him days to respond, it may have something to do with the job as that was a common complaint about the last president. He did say he doesn't know who David duke is when asked why he didn't denounce him during the campaign.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,978
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Aug 24, 2017 18:45:16 GMT
I consume a lot of media - online, in print, very occasionally on tv. I can think of very few straight news stories which contain personal opinion. Op-eds? Columns? Longform articles? Sure, all of those are going to contain varying degrees of personal opinion and/or open bias. But I'll contend again that it's a false assertion that actual news reporters reporting straight news are guilty of this. It's laziness or ignorance on the part of consumers to fail to differentiate and malfeasance on the part of "leaders" who do or should know the difference, to contend otherwise to their supporters.
|
|
|
Post by pb on Aug 24, 2017 19:28:28 GMT
Part of being a leader is being able to articulate clearly. This was a mob of heavily armed protestors with, according to some reports, cache of weapons throughout the city, surrounding opposing protesters, spewing vile things, beating other protesters, with one ramming a car into a crowd. They were chanting racist things.
The president had several hours to come out with a clear statement saying racism is bad, the ramming the car and the violence were white terrorist acts and I condemn them. Period end of story.
There is no moral equivalency between these thugs whose goal is to oppress a group of people with counter protesters or the BLM, etc.
edited because commas are my friends
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 19:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 20:19:36 GMT
This is the perfect example. He did not say he doesn't know who David Duke is, but that's what you've decided he said. It doesn't help that he's inarticulate and says things that occasionally can be interpreted incorrectly, but he did not say he doesn't know who he is, he speaking about the issue of being endorsed by him since he didn't actually endorse him and his confusion as to how it relates himself to white supremacy. As to why it takes him days to respond, it may have something to do with the job as that was a common complaint about the last president. He did say he doesn't know who David duke is when asked why he didn't denounce him during the campaign. Those words did not come out of his mouth in the video I linked, so maybe you have a link showing otherwise?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 19:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 20:23:44 GMT
I consume a lot of media - online, in print, very occasionally on tv. I can think of very few straight news stories which contain personal opinion. Op-eds? Columns? Longform articles? Sure, all of those are going to contain varying degrees of personal opinion and/or open bias. But I'll contend again that it's a false assertion that actual news reporters reporting straight news are guilty of this. It's laziness or ignorance on the part of consumers to fail to differentiate and malfeasance on the part of "leaders" who do or should know the difference, to contend otherwise to their supporters. Ive seen it myself and as if that weren't enough, when even the media is saying its happening then I tend to believe it's happening.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Aug 24, 2017 20:28:25 GMT
All you have to do is search "trump denies knowing who David Duke is" on You Tube and you can find it. I would have put it in my post but I don't know how to embed videos.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Aug 24, 2017 21:13:06 GMT
Again, context matters. How long did it take him to denounce David Duke during the campaign? And then clearly he lied about it (as evidenced by your video) saying that he didn't know who David duke was (when he has made reference to him in the past). As for Charlottesville...if white supremacists were marching in your name, and were on record of bringing your name into it and saying that they wanted to fulfill your promises...would you say, "that is not what I stand for!" I know I sure would. There is no limit to the amount of times he should be denouncing the kkk and nazis. He is quick to denounce Muslim terrorists. He doesn't say, "well, Ive already denounced them so I don't need to do it again". He jumps on it and takes the opportunity to make threats against Muslims. Why? Because it fits his agenda. But yet he takes days to respond about white supremacists. Why do you think that is? And when he does denounce them it is because others told him to, which is obvious if you listened to what he said initially, then what he said on Monday and Tuesday of that week. It is easy to see how he really feels, and that he does not want to turn away his base of deplorables. He says just enough that it will satisfy people that don't want to admit that they voted for a racist but that he still lets his true feelings be known. And that is why you have white supremacists saying they are happy with how he responded. Doesn't that concern you at all? This is the perfect example. He did not say he doesn't know who David Duke is, but that's what you've decided he said. It doesn't help that he's inarticulate and says things that occasionally can be interpreted incorrectly, but he did not say he doesn't know who he is, he speaking about the issue of being endorsed by him since he didn't actually endorse him and his confusion as to how it relates himself to white supremacy. As to why it takes him days to respond, it may have something to do with the job as that was a common complaint about the last president. www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/donald-trump/trumps-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,978
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Aug 24, 2017 21:21:42 GMT
You're going to have to provide some concrete examples esp. since the one example you did post was from an entertainment show. Also you still seem to be equating "the media" with actual news reporting. They are not the same thing.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 19:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 21:54:31 GMT
This is the perfect example. He did not say he doesn't know who David Duke is, but that's what you've decided he said. It doesn't help that he's inarticulate and says things that occasionally can be interpreted incorrectly, but he did not say he doesn't know who he is, he speaking about the issue of being endorsed by him since he didn't actually endorse him and his confusion as to how it relates himself to white supremacy. As to why it takes him days to respond, it may have something to do with the job as that was a common complaint about the last president. www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/donald-trump/trumps-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/It's hard to argue with a second similar statement that is quoted in that article. "Somebody told me yesterday, whoever he is, he did endorse me." Along with the statement in my video that clearly confirms to me that he's trying to put forth that he doesn't know who he is. I wonder why it isn't included in the video?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 19:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 21:58:38 GMT
You're going to have to provide some concrete examples esp. since the one example you did post was from an entertainment show. Also you still seem to be equating "the media" with actual news reporting. They are not the same thing. I provided a concrete example with what Gerard Baker, the editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal said.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 24, 2017 22:19:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Aug 24, 2017 22:35:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Aug 24, 2017 22:37:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 24, 2017 22:57:10 GMT
Many of us read the actual transcripts of his words and increasingly I see the media read direct quotes of the president. I don't think his words are getting twisted when it comes from the President himself. Case in point, technically, in Phoenix, the President quoted his statements on Charlottesville correctly but he left out the part if the sentence that caused most of the commotion. The media then showed the President in Phoenix and then quoted the entirety of his original statements. That is what journalists are suppose to do. Then they continually report that he supports racists and refused to denounce the required denouncement of the moment and often reality just doesn't support the commentary. The most striking thing about this video is how many people who were once telling it like it is regarding Trump but are now kissing his ass. Interesting to see so many in one video compilation.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 24, 2017 22:58:45 GMT
It's hard to argue with a second similar statement that is quoted in that article. "Somebody told me yesterday, whoever he is, he did endorse me." Along with the statement in my video that clearly confirms to me that he's trying to put forth that he doesn't know who he is. I wonder why it isn't included in the video? Didn't fit the agenda of the person making the video.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 19:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2017 0:41:47 GMT
There is a difference between a reporter and newstertainment personalities. Maggie Haberman = reporter. Mika & Joe = entertainers on a current events political show. It's further complicated because reporters like Maggie Haberman can and do have a voice/opinion indpendent of the stories they publish. It's up to us as consumers of different types of media to differentiate. Our lack of discernment is not the responsibility of actual news organizations and journalists doing solid work. It is MY opinion that over the last year, the editor of the WSJ has demonstrated his own biases in directing his reporters what to cover and how to cover it; YMMV. It's funny (aka sad) how people don't understand the difference between news articles and opinion pieces.
|
|
|
Post by pb on Aug 25, 2017 1:37:19 GMT
I have seen reports that Gerald from the WSJ is receiving pressure from his boss Murdoch to lay off Trump.
Journalists have different roles
1) report the facts....fact Trump lied in Phoenix 2) provide context...Trump has a history of lying (refer to Washington Post's compilation of documented lies) 3) investigate...shine a light on those things on this earth that need to be seen, i.e. The war in Dufur, corruption cases, etc 4) patterns...use facts and investigations to highlight patterns
Pundits add a fifth...provide an opinion, Trump is a liar.
What has happened in media is the line between journalists and pundits has been blurred which requires greater discernment from the reader/viewer...which of the five items is being highlighted in this report.
|
|