Jump to content

President-elect Trump

Politics   (45,876 Views 192 Comments)
6 Followers; 100,725 Visitors; 16,642 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 13 of President-elect Trump. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

first it was opinionated fact checking and that didn't work for the left now the alt-reality echo chamber throws out fake news. When that doesn't work what will be next for the leftists? Do we really need to list the fake news that was put out by Democrats? Newsweek had to backtrack on the Madam President issue of their magazine because of outright falsehoods in the article. Amazing how many on the left are "literally shaking" because of the Trumpster winning.

You keep talking about "the alt-reality" in connection with liberals, but it seems to me that it is the Trump supporters on the right that are the "alt-reality" crowd. It is the right that repeatedly fell for and frothed at the mouth over "news" during the campaign that has now been admitted (by its creators) to be entirely false and fictional, who ignored and rejected the debunking of these "fake news" items during the campaign, and at least one of the "fake news" entrepreneurs admitted in interview that his group tried doing the same thing (creating "fake news") targeted at liberals, but that didn't work; liberals wouldn't take the bait or fall for fake news. But large numbers of people on the right (including people who posted here about these "fake news" items) would fall for any crazy thing that they put on the web because it was something they wanted to be true.

Also, it's worth pointing out (once again :rolleyes:) that the only two individuals actually accused of and charged with voter fraud so far in this election are both Trump supporters.

Liberals are only the "alt-reality" group in your alt-reality world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if the rules allow it and the party is paying for it then there shouldn't be a problem. I find it a bit hypocritical that Clinton who whined about Trump accepting the election results has decided to join the recount effort.

The Clinton campaign has said repeatedly that they don't feel the recount is warranted, they have not called for a recount, and they don't expect a recount to change the election results -- but that, if a recount is going to take place, they are going to have representatives involved to represent their interests. You could just as easily say that the Trump campaign is "joining the recount," since they, also, are sending representatives to observe and participate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first it was opinionated fact checking and that didn't work for the left now the alt-reality echo chamber throws out fake news. When that doesn't work what will be next for the leftists? Do we really need to list the fake news that was put out by Democrats? Newsweek had to backtrack on the Madam President issue of their magazine because of outright falsehoods in the article. Amazing how many on the left are "literally shaking" because of the Trumpster winning.

It's amazing that pointing out lies and fake news doesn't phase you and that in fact you gloat at it's success and defend it with a "but your side does it too".

Yeah, I'm shaking...mostly with anger and disgust deep to my bones. But I do accept the reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's amazing that pointing out lies and fake news doesn't phase you and that in fact you gloat at it's success and defend it with a "but your side does it too".

Yeah, I'm shaking...mostly with anger and disgust deep to my bones. But I do accept the reality.

What's "fake news"? Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" memo about Bush's military service?

How about the Buzzfeed article on the Gaines', made up out of whole cloth? They might be infidels? (So would Rep Keith Ellison and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, by the same standard.)

Will a phone call to Taiwan start WWIII?

The problem with 'fake news' is who is the umpire, who's the gatekeeper? Yes, the internet has allowed "news" to propagate without filter.

But.

The MSM, supporting left wing causes, to the tune of 80 plus percentage of its members being self-ID Dem voters, has become little more than a superPAC, another focused advocacy group. Even their mindless pushing of DJT was grounded in the belief that he would single-handedly destroy the GOP for a generation. They relished in the possibilities.

By ceding its role as an honest broker of fact to become a left wing advocacy group, the media lost all credibility to gatekeep "fake news". To that great extent, they created it.

The problem isn't just how gullible people are to 'fake news'. It's also how jaded they've become to the unbiased accuracy of "real news". As such, the media lecturing me about "fake news" is laughable. Pot. Kettle.

To wit: to the extent I watch TV news anymore, over the last 2 years I've moved back to watching the Clinton News Network, CNN. Of course it's biased, but I can wade through its crap easier than I can Fox News these days.

I find it laughably ironic that I have more tolerance for Van Jones these days than Sean Hannity. "Fake news" indeed. It's a whole whitelash of irony.

Nobody has the moral authority to be an umpire. Who decides what's "fake"? That's the problem.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell you how bad it is, media-wise. I've done this for the last few election cycles. As the first polls close, I switch back and forth between CNN and MSNBC and screen out everything they say and just focus on their demeanor: do they appear excited or upset.

They've seen the internals and the real exit polls. They know.

7pm, Nov 8, 2016: I was convinced HRC won using this metric. The analyists on CNN and MSNBC both had an undertone of eagerness to get to the real results. They expected what those results would be. I wouldn't say they were excited so much as ready to move on to talk about Coronation Day.

8 PM hour. Kelly-Anne Conway on MSNBC talking about his close they came and how the whole GOP didn't come out in support. Nail. In. The. Coffin. And the MSNBC analysts (and Twitter) came alive with eager anticipation of what that portended.

It wasn't until into the 9 pm hour that the analysts started to become uncomfortable.

Move to 11 and many of them came unglued. I thought Van Jones was going to throw a well-deserved punch at Lewandowski.

My point. I watched the results almost completely disinterested with whatever useless thing the media had to say. I was looking for their reactions. I was looking to see the tea leaves by reading their faces.

That normally works well but didn't this time only because - they were wrong. They thought she'd won.

The networks are not gatekeepers of truth. They have no moral authority to root out "fake" news.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's "fake news"? Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" memo about Bush's military service?

How about the Buzzfeed article on the Gaines', made up out of whole cloth? They might be infidels? (So would Rep Keith Ellison and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, by the same standard.)

Will a phone call to Taiwan start WWIII?

The problem with 'fake news' is who is the umpire, who's the gatekeeper? Yes, the internet has allowed "news" to propagate without filter.

But.

The MSM, supporting left wing causes, to the tune of 80 plus percentage of its members being self-ID Dem voters, has become little more than a superPAC, another focused advocacy group. Even their mindless pushing of DJT was grounded in the belief that he would single-handedly destroy the GOP for a generation. They relished in the possibilities.

By ceding its role as an honest broker of fact to become a left wing advocacy group, the media lost all credibility to gatekeep "fake news". To that great extent, they created it.

The problem isn't just how gullible people are to 'fake news'. It's also how jaded they've become to the unbiased accuracy of "real news". As such, the media lecturing me about "fake news" is laughable. Pot. Kettle.

To wit: to the extent I watch TV news anymore, over the last 2 years I've moved back to watching the Clinton News Network, CNN. Of course it's biased, but I can wade through its crap easier than I can Fox News these days.

I find it laughably ironic that I have more tolerance for Van Jones these days than Sean Hannity. "Fake news" indeed. It's a whole whitelash of irony.

Nobody has the moral authority to be an umpire. Who decides what's "fake"? That's the problem.

~faith,

Timothy.

I pretty much disagree with all of this. If the media is such a left wing advocacy group, how do you explain that in 2012, 2014, and 2016 Republicans have trounced all over Democrats?

The media destroyed Clinton as well as other people like Weiner and Wasserman. They've reported accurately on the email scandals and the DNC's attempts to manipulate things in favor of Clinton.

By fake news, I'm talking about internet sites devoted to making things up and appearing true. There's a site that resembles ABC News for example that widespread support and outrage from people for it's made up stories. It's hard to tell truth from fiction anymore.

I will say that just because Trump was so outrageous and they reported his antics, you can't say it's "left wing advocacy". He made his own bed in the media, used them to his delight and then spit on them.

I'm not going to say the media doesn't blow things up out of proportion such as a phone call to Tawain, or someone using a private email server to do their job, etc. They do. I also can't claim that sometimes because of the antics of the right that things don't swing towards an appearance of being left wing. Most newspapers endorsed Clinton, most news outlets gave an outrageous amount of negative time to Trump, many talk show panels had liberals on it and got a lot of airtime.

Regardless of this left wing conspiracy it blew up in their face for many many election cycles Republicans won. This is why I can't believe that the media is left wing because people actually see the news and make up their own minds and resist manipulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll tell you how bad it is, media-wise. I've done this for the last few election cycles. As the first polls close, I switch back and forth between CNN and MSNBC and screen out everything they say and just focus on their demeanor: do they appear excited or upset.

They've seen the internals and the real exit polls. They know.

7pm, Nov 8, 2016: I was convinced HRC won using this metric. The analyists on CNN and MSNBC both had an undertone of eagerness to get to the real results. They expected what those results would be. I wouldn't say they were excited so much as ready to move on to talk about Coronation Day.

8 PM hour. Kelly-Anne Conway on MSNBC talking about his close they came and how the whole GOP didn't come out in support. Nail. In. The. Coffin. And the MSNBC analysts (and Twitter) came alive with eager anticipation of what that portended.

It wasn't until into the 9 pm hour that the analysts started to become uncomfortable.

Move to 11 and many of them came unglued. I thought Van Jones was going to throw a well-deserved punch at Lewandowski.

My point. I watched the results almost completely disinterested with whatever useless thing the media had to say. I was looking for their reactions. I was looking to see the tea leaves by reading their faces.

That normally works well but didn't this time only because - they were wrong. They thought she'd won.

The networks are not gatekeepers of truth. They have no moral authority to root out "fake" news.

~faith,

Timothy.

They never reported "fake news" on election night. They told the truth, that Clinton was highly favored to win, and then she didn't. What's fake about that?

The reporters of course presumed she would win, that's what everyone presumed, and they seemed the fool when it turned in his direction. Millions upon millions of people looked aghast as the truth came out not just the reporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did all the presumption that Clinton would win come from?

They never reported "fake news" on election night. They told the truth, that Clinton was highly favored to win, and then she didn't. What's fake about that?

The reporters of course presumed she would win, that's what everyone presumed, and they seemed the fool when it turned in his direction. Millions upon millions of people looked aghast as the truth came out not just the reporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did all the presumption that Clinton would win come from?

Although some of you, as well as people that don't believe the news, were completely confident that Trump would win, it pretty much all sources were tilting it towards Clinton. Not just mainstream media, but also polls from independent agencies. Even Republican politicians were preparing themselves for a Clinton presidency.

Most of us understood there was a margin of error that could tilt it in his favor, but still a good deal of us were surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the union leader Donald Trump attacked. I'm tired of being lied to about our jobs.

Trump swore he'd save our jobs. He didn't.

In February, corporate officials came to our plant and announced that they were closing the facility.

They would move 1,300 jobs to a plant in Mexico. (Three hundred and fifty positions would remain in Indianapolis, mostly filled by research and development staff.)

Over the next several months, my team and I worked tirelessly to keep Carrier in our city. We came up with $23 million in savings, but the Carrier brass said that wasn't enough. They could save $65 millionby moving to Mexico.

We couldn't match that unless we were willing to cut wages to $5/hour and cut all benefits.

So we started to negotiate a severance package instead...

... Trump got involved. He sat down with Carrier leaders. Afterward, he announced that 1,100 jobs would be saved...

... When I met with Carrier officials last Thursday, I realized that that wouldn't be the case. Though Trump said he'd saved 1,100 jobs, he hadn't. Carrier told us that 550 people would get laid off...

... Trump let people believe that they were going to have a livelihood in that facility. He let people breathe easy. When I told our members the next day, they were devastated. I was angry, too. So I told a reporter the truth — that Trump's 1,100 number was wrong. When Trump read my comments, he got angry. Last night, he tweeted:

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

If United Steelworkers 1999 was any good, they would have kept those jobs in Indiana. Spend more time working-less time talking. Reduce dues

What I can't abide, however, is a president who misleads workers, who gives them false hope.

We're not asking for anything besides opportunity, for jobs that let people provide for their families.

These plants are profitable, and the workers produced a good-quality product. Because of corporate greed, though, company leaders are racing to the bottom, to find places where they can pay the least.

It's a system that exploits everyone...

I’m the union leader Donald Trump attacked. I’m tired of being lied to about our jobs. - The Washington Post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm the union leader Donald Trump attacked. I'm tired of being lied to about our jobs.

Trump swore he'd save our jobs. He didn't.

In February, corporate officials came to our plant and announced that they were closing the facility.

They would move 1,300 jobs to a plant in Mexico. (Three hundred and fifty positions would remain in Indianapolis, mostly filled by research and development staff.)

Over the next several months, my team and I worked tirelessly to keep Carrier in our city. We came up with $23 million in savings, but the Carrier brass said that wasn't enough. They could save $65 millionby moving to Mexico.

We couldn't match that unless we were willing to cut wages to $5/hour and cut all benefits.

So we started to negotiate a severance package instead...

... Trump got involved. He sat down with Carrier leaders. Afterward, he announced that 1,100 jobs would be saved...

... When I met with Carrier officials last Thursday, I realized that that wouldn't be the case. Though Trump said he'd saved 1,100 jobs, he hadn't. Carrier told us that 550 people would get laid off...

... Trump let people believe that they were going to have a livelihood in that facility. He let people breathe easy. When I told our members the next day, they were devastated. I was angry, too. So I told a reporter the truth — that Trump's 1,100 number was wrong. When Trump read my comments, he got angry. Last night, he tweeted:

What I can't abide, however, is a president who misleads workers, who gives them false hope.

We're not asking for anything besides opportunity, for jobs that let people provide for their families.

These plants are profitable, and the workers produced a good-quality product. Because of corporate greed, though, company leaders are racing to the bottom, to find places where they can pay the least.

It's a system that exploits everyone...

I'm the union leader Donald Trump attacked. I'm tired of being lied to about our jobs. - The Washington Post

I don't blame you.

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.