Jump to content

President-elect Trump

Politics   (45,883 Views 192 Comments)
6 Followers; 100,726 Visitors; 16,645 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 11 of President-elect Trump. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Apparently it's harder to find than you think. Your first two links are an LA Times opinion piece (not actual reporting) by a self-described "conservative-paleo-libertarian" activist and blogger, and the far-right Alex Jones website commenting on the same LA Times op-ed piece (with a v. deceptive title; the LA Times "admitted" nothing; it was an op-ed piece).

The third link is a lengthy musing by the NYT's media reporter about what, exactly, is journalistic objectivity and what is the role of the press when you have dangerous kooks running for important public offices. That's a conversation that's been going on for many years, long before Trump thought about running for Groper in Chief. Some within the US press have criticized too many journalists for taking the easy approach to "objectivity," the "on the other hand" model -- i.e., to use an extremely simplistic example, a reporter interviews someone who says the world is round, and, in the interests of "objectivity" and "fairness," the reporter also interviews someone who says that the world isn't round, it's flat, and includes both viewpoints in the final article. You've presented both sides of the controversy, which equals being "objective," end of story. Many people in (and out of) the press feel that true journalistic "objectivity" involves reporting truth and reality; pointing out when people are lying, or just plain wrong, and not giving kooks a public platform, or not presenting a fringe view as if it is equally respected and relevant as the mainstream view, in the name of "objectivity."

The NYT reporter is, rather than (as you apparently believe, since you posted the link) admitting to any "shameful antics," coming down on the side of real journalistic integrity and objectivity (not the cheap, "on the other hand ..." kind), and concludes, in response to the allegations of "unfairness:"

This, however, is what being taken seriously looks like. As Ms. Ryan put it to me, Mr. Trump's candidacy is 'extraordinary and precedent-shattering” and 'to pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous with readers.”Write A Comment

It would also be an abdication of political journalism's most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.

It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn't measure itself against any one campaign's definition of fairness. It is journalism's job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history's judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

(Bolding mine, and it's actually a really good article (did you actually read it?) -- thanks for posting the link!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, look whose here. I was thinking of quitting posting here because of the long time delays after making posts, but I can't help but talk to you my old friend. LOL

Wow, me too. Welcome to the discussion ZASHAGALKA. Nice to see you.

Just wanted to say I enjoy your posts as they embody someone who has done his research.

Your perspective on the electoral college is spot on!

Peace from Spidey's Mom :wavey:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, me too. Welcome to the discussion ZASHAGALKA. Nice to see you.

Just wanted to say I enjoy your posts as they embody someone who has done his research.

Your perspective on the electoral college is spot on!

Peace from Spidey's Mom :wavey:

I'm actually enjoying the post-election cycle.

I truly felt there was no lessor of 2 evils here. They both had serious downsides, just not the same downsides.

I'm a conservative so it doesn't take much to imagine where I might quibble with HRC.

But, I don't trust DJT at all. I believe him to be an unstable, liberal NY democrat whose campaign was little more than a reality TV schtick. The GOP will get some stuff from him and therefore frustrate the left. His natural liberal tendencies will frustrate the right. This election was an eye-opener for me. DJT has no clue about the Constitution or small government. Apparently, neither do many so-called conservatives. Populism is not equal to conservatism. Sigh.

Soooooooo.

I get to witness the schadenfruede of the left melting down now, and I'll get to witness the 'populism over conservatism' wing of the GOP melting down later. A twofer.

I didn't vote for the man. But I can give him props for dispatching both American dynasties (Clinton and Bush) in the same election cycle.

I will say this, the left truly thought this election was in the bag. This is why they are so shocked. They never prepared for this outcome. I'll give Nate Silver his props, he spent the last 2 weeks of the election arguing that it wasn't, in fact, in the bag. He was met with outrage that he didn't place the odds at >90%, like everyone else.

IF DJT follows through on his promises, great. If not, I'll pop some popcorn and watch the show.

~faith,

Timothy.

Edited by ZASHAGALKA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republicans have their own "firewalls" in the EC that favor them as well. Almost the entire South, to include coveted Texas throw the EC their way without them breaking a sweat. Florida really isn't a swing state. Other than going for Clinton in 1996 and Obama their relatively easy for Republicans to get. Obama probably is going to go down more of a unique man in swinging some states and now states are back to "normal" such as Ohio and North Carolina that voted for him once but went back to their history of being Republican...it never was a "swing state".

I really don't know enough about the subject to comment further, but can understand that with over 2 million in popular votes why we're having this discussion. Likely the EC will stay intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is still going with the "it's rigged" concept.

He tweets: "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally"


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trump is still going with the "it's rigged" concept.

He tweets: "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally"

It shows that losing the PV really bothers him. He's going to either have to toughen up his skin or surrender his twitter password, or both.

As it is, if I were the loyal opposition, I'd put the PV in his face relentlessly and test memes for reaction: illegitimate, technical winner, loser.

if he's completely unable to rise to the role, then maybe his time IS better spent whining on twitter.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm actually enjoying the post-election cycle.

I truly felt there was no lessor of 2 evils here. They both had serious downsides, just not the same downsides.

I'm a conservative so it doesn't take much to imagine where I might quibble with HRC.

But, I don't trust DJT at all. I believe him to be an unstable, liberal NY democrat whose campaign was little more than a reality TV schtick. The GOP will get some stuff from him and therefore frustrate the left. His natural liberal tendencies will frustrate the right. This election was an eye-opener for me. DJT has no clue about the Constitution or small government. Apparently, neither do many so-called conservatives. Populism is not equal to conservatism. Sigh.

Soooooooo.

I get to witness the schadenfruede of the left melting down now, and I'll get to witness the populism over conservatism wing of the GOP melting down later. A twofer.

I didn't vote for the man. But I can give him props for dispactching both American dynasties (Clinton and Bush) in the same election cycle.

I will say this, the left truly thought this election was in the bag. This is why they are so shocked. They never prepared for this outcome. I'll give Nate Silver his props, he spent the last 2 weeks of the election arguing that it wasn't, in fact, in the bag. He was met with outrage that he didn't place the odds at >90%, like everyone else.

IF DJT follows through on his promises, great. If not, I'll pop some popcorn and watch the show.

~faith,

Timothy.

My eldest son was here over the Thanksgiving weekend and he's a clone of you, especially regarding Trump.

I too thought I was between a rock and a hard place and I have serious issues with Trump.

We shall see what comes to pass however I am glad that Hillary didn't win - that "dynasty" needed to go. There are so many other more fresh candidates out there. Why go back in time??

I meant to write "faith" but "peace" came out instead and I couldn't edit it due to the board being moderated and waiting until it got posted. But I'll leave it . . . they are both good sentiments.

:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim!!!! Welcome home!

I am glad to read you voted for Evan McMullin. Being...um, not a conservative, McMullin was not the candidate for me (really, there was no candidate for me this cycle) but I respect my conservative friends who voted for him (there were quite a few) as a matter of conscience because they just couldn't pull the lever for a demagogue.

I think the thing to do at this point is refuse to normalize his demagoguery and resist the atrocious and inane things he tries to foist upon true conservatives and liberals alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So here is our President elect continuing to play to that base of "patriots", as if he can be a dictator and make up laws like this that violate the constitution. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 1969. He's also fear mongering because this is not really a rampant form of protest and seems to be pretty rare.

Donald Trump: Anyone who burns American flag should be jailed or lose citizenship | The Independent

Supposedly there was a segment on flag burning on Fox and Friends just before he tweeted.

He will eventually stop the 'stream of consciousness' type of tweets because he will find that its distracting to his agenda.

Or, they'll take take away his password because the GOP will find that his tweets are distracting to THEIR agenda.

Same. Same.

Of course, it's not worth even commenting on the substance of the tweet. For the moment, he'll keep tweeting thusly because he's trolling you and having great fun doing it.

But. Eventually. He'll discover that he can't tweet someone's name without elevating them. That's the Presidency. You can't call out Rosie O'Donnell from the Oval Office without it elevating her to that level.

The Presidency is the inverse about bringing an argument down to someone's level. It elevates someone to YOUR level. He'll get bored of that soon enough.

In the meantime...

TROLL!!

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.