Might want to read the stuff he encourages on HIS website. If he wasn't a white supremacist, he wouldn't allow so much white supremacist crap there.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Might want to read the stuff he encourages on HIS website. If he wasn't a white supremacist, he wouldn't allow so much white supremacist crap there.
Hope is the denial of reality
The cure to speech you don't like is more speech. I'm not going to sit here and defend every potential thing that may be on the website but if you don't have specific things he's actually done to back it up, calling someone a racist is utterly disgusting in political discourse. It is a charge liberals feel real free in doing far too often.
Are you serious? His website (the one he's physically in charge of) is the most read white supremacist website around. This isn't a case of him representing different viewpoints, including this one. It's a case of his website actively promoting white supremacism. Read the freaking website if you don't believe me.
Hope is the denial of reality
Post some examples if you want to. And again - the cure to bad speech is more speech. You sound like someone who is in favor of a social ban on certain types of positions being published anywhere. Someone has a nutter position? I don't have a problem with it being posted on a website and than mocked. Has Bannon stated he is in 100% agreement with everything that gets posted on that site? I really don't know - feel free to pull a quote if he has.
Where are you getting this shit from? Where did I say I support a ban on his website? I support white supremacists not getting the ear of the president. Do you disagree?
No, he just actively promotes it.
Hope is the denial of reality
No - I disagree with the assertion that he's a white supremacist.
Hope is the denial of reality
Oh I was waiting for an article that supports white nationalism from his site and you give me a hit piece from a former employee that has bad blood with them?
http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-...-firing-squad/
Lewk's new America
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Good question #americafirst
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I suppose I am confused. You are saying that the media didn't pay Trump's scandals any attention by pointing out cases where the media has widely reported on Trump's scandals? Or are you attempting to use the front page of the NYT as a bellwether for all media? Granted it is an important publication, but that seems rather myopic to me, and missing the larger point.
I'm not sure where you are getting that definition of partisanship, but I think by saying that the FBI reopening an investigation of a candidate for president of the United States 11 days before the election, a scandal that had dogged that candidate for months, by way of a tawdry underage sexing investigation from a politician that is both widely known and widely reviled, as being a minor development is more telling about where you are coming from than where the news publication is coming from. That isn't just front page news, it is sensational front page news. Had the FBI reopened an investigation into Donald Trump's rape of an underage girl 11 days before the election I would posit you would see a similar level of coverage. Law suits being settled out of court, or hard to substantiate allegations that occur directly before the election are par for the course in our politics.Enoch, since you're so concerned about quote unquote "partisanship" - which apparently means failure to assert that both sides are as bad as each other on all occasions, even if they're actually not - I urge you to repeat the same exercise with one of the last two GOP candidates - especially compare the coverage of Romney's 47% remarks with, *rolls dice*, Trump's charity scandal.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-22-2016 at 04:17 PM.
I'm saying they didn't report on the scandals anywhere near as widely as they could and should have, not only in comparison to Clinton's e-mails but also the other negative stories about her and also in comparison to negative stories about other candidates in previous campaigns - for example, the endless saga of Jeremiah Wright for Obama or Romney's 47% remarks - they went on and on about those things for days, if not weeks. And do you remember the fucking Swift boat thing with Kerry?
I used the NYT because a) that was the newspaper that was in the initial post I made and b) they have a thing on their website where you can get past front pages as PDFs.
And I'm not going to take lectures on 'missing wider points' from someone who constantly wants perfectly obvious arguments like that spelled out for them, thank you.
I'm sure you aren't.I'm not sure where you are getting that definition of partisanship,
It really isn't. Not if you look at what the letter actually said.but I think by saying that the FBI reopening an investigation of a candidate for president of the United States 11 days before the election, a scandal that had dogged that candidate for months, by way of a tawdry underage sexing investigation from a politician that is both widely known and widely reviled, as being a minor development is more telling about where you are coming from than where the news publication is coming from. That isn't just front page news, it is sensational front page news.
The FBI did investigate Trump, or his campaign, looking into connections between him and Russian intelligence. For some unaccountable reason, this wasn't as widely reported as the e-mail thing. It was just days before the election, too.Had the FBI reopened an investigation into Donald Trump's rape of an underage girl 11 days before the election I would posit you would see a similar level of coverage. Law suits being settled out of court, or hard to substantiate allegations that occur directly before the election are par for the course in our politics.
http://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fb...ies-to-russia/
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2016/1...tpage/scan.pdf
So, FBI reopening an investigation to see if a bunch of e-mails it found are maybe anything of interest - sensational story, needs three days of front page coverage
FBI opening an investigation to see if a candidate of a major party is a Manchurian candidate for, of all things, Russia - not really that big a D
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Perhaps it illustrates their deep understanding of the American psyche.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Then I guess I am saying you are completely out of your depth in providing anything resembling an adequate analysis of the complete media picture the average American encounters in their day-to-day. I'm open to the possibility I'm an outlier, but every day going into work I heard stories about Trump's scandals on the radio, (as I typically listen to NPR on my commute that may not be surprising) as well as seeing them featured both on the news aggregators I use, (Google News typically) and the television media I am exposed to, (typically the local evening news, rarely cable news). That doesn't even begin to include the attack ads for Trump that featured both personal and professional scandals prominently. Was Trump often a punchline in the media, sure. Is it fair to say he wasn't taken seriously, I think so. Did he receive a pass in coverage of his scandals, both personal and professional? The evidence I have seen and experienced doesn't support that. Perhaps they didn't cover each scandal in the depth that you would prefer, but given the quantity and variety to choose from that may have presented its own set of challenges. The same could not necessarily have been said about Clinton.
Then feel free to take a lecture on missing the wider point from someone who actually lives in the country and has consumed the media. Or maybe you believe Hazir has a better understanding of the remembrance poppy than you do.I used the NYT because a) that was the newspaper that was in the initial post I made and b) they have a thing on their website where you can get past front pages as PDFs.
And I'm not going to take lectures on 'missing wider points' from someone who constantly wants perfectly obvious arguments like that spelled out for them, thank you.
The FBI looked into it and has found nothing, at least nothing yet. Also widely reported. The Heat St. followup citing unnamed sources in the intelligence community reporting exclusively to a modest media outlet can hardly be compared with a letter from the FBI sent to Congress, after a verbal reprimand from the FBI director. I'm sorry Steely, but you are reaching here.The FBI did investigate Trump, or his campaign, looking into connections between him and Russian intelligence. For some unaccountable reason, this wasn't as widely reported as the e-mail thing. It was just days before the election, too.
http://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fb...ies-to-russia/
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2016/1...tpage/scan.pdf
So, FBI reopening an investigation to see if a bunch of e-mails it found are maybe anything of interest - sensational story, needs three days of front page coverage
FBI opening an investigation to see if a candidate of a major party is a Manchurian candidate for, of all things, Russia - not really that big a D
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-22-2016 at 09:37 PM.
In fact I did take a lecture from some people who live in the country - most of whom work in the media, so see this shit first hand. Why do you think I started making this point in the first place?
HuffPo: Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old. Why Haven’t The Media Covered It?
Slate: How Trump Gets Away With ItFor months, people have wondered why this case isn’t getting more ― or, really, any ― attention in the press, even now that Trump faces an actual court date: a Dec. 16 status conference with the judge.
WaPo: Why Hillary Clinton’s perceived corruption seems to echo louder than Donald Trump’s actual corruption.And yet, time and again it’s Clinton who is portrayed as the serial scofflaw and Trump whose real-life legal troubles go unnoticed. For all the talk of false equivalency, double standards, and lazy media narratives, what does it mean that a pattern of genuine legal mayhem is treated as adorable when Trump does it, and as felony wrongdoing when Clinton is alleged to be doing it?
Paul Waldman of the Washington Post, who recently proffered a list of Clinton’s alleged misdeeds versus Trump’s, blames the press for this dynamic. “We may have reached a point where the frames around the candidates are locked in,” he writes. “Trump is supposedly the crazy/bigoted one, and Clinton is supposedly the corrupt one.”
That article also cites these tweets:Over the Labor Day weekend, there was quite the chatter comparing and contrasting the news media coverage of Hillary Clinton’s alleged improprieties involving the Clinton Foundation and Donald Trump’s actual improprieties involving the Trump Foundation, his businesses, and his campaign.
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
(Dowd is, as the WaPo, points out, the Lord High Chamberlain of the 'Both Sides Are Bad' Monkeys who once tried to compare being a sexual predator with misusing an e-mail server, so if he's saying that then you know shits gotten real)
US News: Trump Scandal Fatigue
And this is a good one.In addition, last Friday saw the release of a new video of Trump, on stage, humiliating a former Miss Universe winner in 2011. (No, not that former Miss Universe winner, a different one.) The video is just the latest on-tape evidence of Trump's raging misogyny and his belief that women deserve to be publicly degraded.
But did that video earn any play in the political media? Barely. What about any of the above stories? Meh. They received coverage, sure, but nothing like the sustained focus directed on Clinton and her damn emails.
[...]
Stuff that should be utterly disqualifying has become so normalized that it's treated like a footnote in the tale of 2016. Stories that should be shocking are just one more bit of Trump info for the pile. Everything is crazy, therefore nothing is.
Gallup Poll: "Email" Dominates What Americans Have Heard About Clinton
And these two illuminating word clouds:Americans' reports of what they have read, seen or heard about Hillary Clinton over the past two months are dominated by references to her handling of emails while she was secretary of state.
By contrast, Americans' reports of what they have read, seen or heard about Donald Trump over this same period have been more varied and related to his campaign activities and statements.
Also this, although anonymously sourced, is telling if accurate:
Twitter Link
So, no, you really can't just write this off as an uninformed Brit talking about a country he doesn't live in. This is something a lot of people in America have been talking about since the primaries.
Incidentally, this 538 transcript is interesting and worth a read. It doesn't quite make the same point I am, but it covers some of the same ground: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...2016-campaign/
Over the weekend, Nate, there was a discussion about how newspapers and cable are trying to balance coverage of Clinton and Trump. And lots of more liberal commentators, including Paul Krugman at The Times, are pointing out that the coverage of the Clinton Foundation is a little fast and loose with phrases like “casts a cloud” or “raises questions” and this sort of innuendo, but there isn’t actually much there there. And then you can actually point to real moments of corruption and pay to play and bribery and all these things in Donald Trump’s past, so I just wondered, Nate, what you think about the impulse to scrutinize both candidates, but also whether you think there’s an emerging “got to hit both sides” impulse in the media.When we talked about the last minute Comey letter, you rightly pointed out that the media could not have known it would turn out to be a nothing when the story first broke. Likewise, when the FBI first announced it was investigating Trump's connections with Russia, they could not have known that nothing much was going to cover it.
Again, are you going to look me in the figurative eye and tell me that the last minute Trump FBI investigation got anywhere near the level of coverage the last minute Clinton one did?
Last edited by Steely Glint; 11-22-2016 at 11:54 PM.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Trump is a master tactician when it comes to media attention. Yes, he had negative media coverage, but it was largely for petty bullshit and his toddler level self control. Stuff he could play off as "the man trying to keep him down" that his dumb as rock followers ate up. When something major would come out, like say... settling his Trump University lawsuit, he would invent some false rage over some pointless bullshit, like say... Pence getting a talking to at a Hamilton play.
Twitter Link
Trump masterfully played the media, not that the media doesn't have blood on their own hands. They never approached him like a serious candidate (ignoring that he never acted like one to begin with). Instead he was treated like some TMZ star, and got the media coverage to match.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Almost the entire media wanted Trump to lose and somehow they are the ones who made him win? Hilarious. (If probably not true).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...coming-a-judge
More on Sessions.
Hope is the denial of reality
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/23/politi...un-ambassador/
Trump is mending fences with those who opposed him to the last in the Republican primary. Good sign that he's not willing to burn bridges with those who have 'wronged' him in the past.
Oh you poor naïve little boy.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yeah, by sending someone with no foreign policy experience to an organization he doesn't give a damn about.
Hope is the denial of reality
Pretty sure a most UN countries don't have the GDP of her state that she ran as governor. I mean are you even serious at this point? Being a governor is considered a great move prior to being a POTUS, yet you think it isn't good enough to be the ambassador to the UN?
Maybe you should re-read Loki's post. Pro-tip: it's written in English
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
See above. This is a token appointment to a position Trump doesn't think much of.
And yes Lewk, being a governor is nothing like engaging in diplomacy (where you can't order people around and have to do very boring but complex work most of the time).
Hope is the denial of reality
Well the actual diplomats themselves seem to disagree with you.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38083904
"Diplomats relieved - BBC's Nick Bryant, at the UN
Eye-catching though her political career has been, little is known about Nikki Haley's views on foreign affairs and the United Nations. Diplomats here have been Googling her to find out more. When her nomination was announced I was with a senior diplomat, who had expected President-elect Trump to downgrade the job of UN ambassador so that it was no longer a cabinet-level position.
He was heartened that Mr Trump had selected a "political heavyweight", and viewed it as an early indication than the incoming administration will take the UN more seriously than he'd supposed. Certainly, she's no John Bolton, the US ambassador during the Bush administration who famously remarked that it would not make much of a difference if the UN headquarters in New York lost its top 10 floors - where the organisation's most senior figures, including the secretary general, have their offices.
Many UN diplomats fear a Trump presidency and there's relief here that he hasn't appointed an outspoken UN-basher."
Are you serious? They're relieved because she's not some white supremacist nutjob.
Hope is the denial of reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...d25_story.html
Entirely unexpected.
Hope is the denial of reality
Just another sign that Pence is running the show.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
That would be the optimistic take. The pessimistic (and probably the realistic) take is that Trump thinks he knows everything and will make policy without listening to anyone but himself.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
