US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

And here is Shepard Smith from Fox defending CNN: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-journalist-should-be-subjected-to-belittling

 

[mrzz]

Trump is trying as hard as he can to discredit various serious news sources. I'm not sure why you don't like CNN, but even if you feel one news source or another has an editorial bias, there is a difference between sources with actual journalists who do their jobs, and sources that purely digest news through the filter of editorial bias. There really IS such a thing as a more credible news source than others.

Surely, but it really takes an effort to find someone LESS credible than CNN. Maybe Fox News. For someone looking from the outside, it is as people were trying to find out who is the more credible person inside a compulsive liars treatment clinic...

I really agree with the premise (some news sources are more reliable than others), and I cannot judge CNN regarding what happens inside US, but every international story I bothered to check (in more than one different source, looking for actual data and official documentation), or in the ones I had good information about to start with, CNN is far from reliable. Maybe there are worst things there in US, I could not tell, but I have to admit that I am laughing every time I remember that Trump (and others) labelled CNN as "fake news". Poetical justice....

 

[Federberg]

Out of curiosity. If the major news outlets are all discredited. Where in everyone's opinions should one go to get the news these days?

 

[britbox]

I'll see you an outrage and raise you another. At least this one was held until after the election. No mention from you of Comey putting his finger on the scale 11 days before the election. Whether this holds water or not, there's something to be said for this one being held until after the election, and then some.

Just to make it clear, you mean "MSNBC". I don't think CNN being between those is a bad business model.

And I do appreciate that Trump is trying to shake things up in new ways. I'll be fair, if they come through. But the people he is proposing for his cabinet don't really sing to a "new approach." They mostly tell a story of keeping the money for the wealthy, and flatly reject all progressive initiatives from the last 8 years. If he brings all the jobs he promises, and benefits to the middle class, I'll give him the credit. I will keep up the good fight to protect progressive causes. Note that he has already walked back some thing that he promised. Mexico won't pay for that wall. (Oh, right...they'll reimburse us.) And he's not going to overturn Obamacare immediately...why? Because NOBODY wants it to go away without another plan in place. And they have yet to offer another plan.

I'm not shocked that they can't manufacture a revolution. That really takes time. We'll see how much they can do for the good of those who voted for them, and how much is really just the good for the 1%. And how much they don't walk back the good of those who didn't vote for them. He is a vengeful SOB.

We'll have to see what unfolds... but I'm actually thinking this is the first president for a long time who is proposing something on this scale... and yet half the population get wrapped up in "progressive initiatives". If Trump is able to pull off half the things he's proposing it could really shake up the US for the better...

As for CNN, yes it was supposed to be somewhere in the middle - that's why it's often been the chosen news channel of broadcasters running 24 hour news... but it's really jumped the shark over recent times, particularly with the constant barrage of Trump. It needs to pull back from the brink

Out of curiosity. If the major news outlets are all discredited. Where in everyone's opinions should one go to get the news these days?

The National Enquirer.

 

[Federberg]

We'll have to see what unfolds... but I'm actually thinking this is the first president for a long time who is proposing something on this scale... and yet half the population get wrapped up in "progressive initiatives". If Trump is able to pull off half the things he's proposing it could really shake up the US for the better...

As for CNN, yes it was supposed to be somewhere in the middle - that's why it's often been the chosen news channel of broadcasters running 24 hour news... but it's really jumped the shark over recent times, particularly with the constant barrage of Trump. It needs to pull back from the brink


The National Enquirer.

:lulz2:

 

[britbox]

Probably the greatest orator of our lifetime though, not sure anyone can take that away from him

I don't think Obama is a great orator... he's a good presenter. Cut through the cliches and I'm struggling to find much substance. He's eloquent and polished... but Martin Luther King he isn't.

 

[mrzz]

Out of curiosity. If the major news outlets are all discredited. Where in everyone's opinions should one go to get the news these days?

I ask this myself a lot. Let´s make a deal... if you find a good place you tell me, and vice versa, right?

Just let me share my personal experience about this here in Brazil. Here we have also a deeply divided country. The (roughly speaking) political equivalent of the British Labour Party were in power and got impeached. Most of the mainstream media were against them, most of the academics, or at least half of them, were on their side. It was very hard to follow what was (and is) really happening. But most of the congress sessions (and supreme court sessions) were televised, and past decisions and laws are of public record. So I decided to follow it and find somethings for myself. What I found out is that both sides played with the facts, and always showed partial truths. The whole impeachment story started with trials of people who actually were guilty of corruption, but out of political interest were trialed in the wrong instance, and with full media coverage. On side focus on the partial truth of the corruption, the other on the partial truth of the staged media event of the trials. Of course both sides spice it up with lies.

In the end, I got to the sad conclusion that to get really well informed, I need to make a giant effort to follow everything up close to the source. So my best choice now (given that I rather use my time in a lot of other stuff, from writing, reading, and going back to play tennis) is to read from two opposed biased sources, and make my best guesses out of it. But I know for a fact that this is yet incomplete. Some details and notions I got when I was following stuff closely I could never have found out with this approach... but it is better than nothing.

 

[Federberg]

I don't think Obama is a great orator... he's a good presenter. Cut through the cliches and I'm struggling to find much substance. He's eloquent and polished... but Martin Luther King he isn't.

It's about opinions. I disagree

 

[Federberg]

I ask this myself a lot. Let´s make a deal... if you find a good place you tell me, and vice versa, right?

Just let me share my personal experience about this here in Brazil. Here we have also a deeply divided country. The (roughly speaking) political equivalent of the British Labour Party were in power and got impeached. Most of the mainstream media were against them, most of the academics, or at least half of them, were on their side. It was very hard to follow what was (and is) really happening. But most of the congress sessions (and supreme court sessions) were televised, and past decisions and laws are of public record. So I decided to follow it and find somethings for myself. What I found out is that both sides played with the facts, and always showed partial truths. The whole impeachment story started with trials of people who actually were guilty of corruption, but out of political interest were trialed in the wrong instance, and with full media coverage. On side focus on the partial truth of the corruption, the other on the partial truth of the staged media event of the trials. Of course both sides spice it up with lies.

In the end, I got to the sad conclusion that to get really well informed, I need to make a giant effort to follow everything up close to the source. So my best choice now (given that I rather use my time in a lot of other stuff, from writing, reading, and going back to play tennis) is to read from two opposed biased sources, and make my best guesses out of it. But I know for a fact that this is yet incomplete. Some details and notions I got when I was following stuff closely I could never have found out with this approach... but it is better than nothing.

That's a reasonable way to do it. I consume news from both sides. Funnily enough, there are lots of things, particularly on the economic front where I find Fox News more palatable. But then on other issues some other source might have more weight for me. Obviously news is going to be digested through our own personal value filter. It's always been this way, it's just that now we have to consciously use that mental organ more.

I'm constantly amused that some people (and I'm not saying this about anyone on this forum) will compromise their own personal preferences to side wholesale with a party or media outlet. That's far too much effort for me, but maybe it's because I tend to have very strong opinions

 

[britbox]

Interesting insight on how Trump won...

 

[teddytennisfan]

I don't think Obama is a great orator... he's a good presenter. Cut through the cliches and I'm struggling to find much substance. He's eloquent and polished... but Martin Luther King he isn't.

HOW DARE YOU denigrate and belittle him THAT way?

were you sleeping or something -- not being AWED by obama's UP RAISED JAW? such confidence, such authority, such greatness...SUCH a stance doesn't come just like that, u know..
not unless you're the CHOSEN son of a USAID ''anthropologist" in indonesia right about Sukarno got offed --......if ya know what i mean.....

His High AWESOMENESS!!

:lulz2::cuckoo:

 

[teddytennisfan]

if there ever was a MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE -- of the CIA...

tha'ts obama.

 

[Federberg]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...redibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author

 

[mrzz]

That's a reasonable way to do it. I consume news from both sides. Funnily enough, there are lots of things, particularly on the economic front where I find Fox News more palatable. But then on other issues some other source might have more weight for me. Obviously news is going to be digested through our own personal value filter. It's always been this way, it's just that now we have to consciously use that mental organ more.

I'm constantly amused that some people (and I'm not saying this about anyone on this forum) will compromise their own personal preferences to side wholesale with a party or media outlet. That's far too much effort for me, but maybe it's because I tend to have very strong opinions

Agree. It is quite hard to go against one´s own filter, and one thing I like about this forum is that we have a bunch of people that can strongly disagree but yet still find a way to talk to each other, so we get a healthy dose of divergent opinions that somehow finds a way past our filters.

 

[britbox]

If you get a chance guys and have some spare time, watch that Newt Gringich video I put up earlier. It's a fascinating insight in how Trump played the media on a much lesser budget than Clinton and did some pretty unique things that ultimately swung the election. Compelling viewing regardless of political sympathies.

 

[Moxie]

It's about opinions. I disagree

I'm with you. I find it hard to understand, though, even where people disagree with Obama's policies, that they can't admire him as an orator, in this day and age, and as an upstanding person. For some people, we live in a parallel universe as to President Obama. But it has always been that way, and will be an ongoing mystery.

 

[britbox]

I'm with you. I find it hard to understand, though, even where people disagree with Obama's policies, that they can't admire him as an orator, in this day and age, and as an upstanding person. For some people, we live in a parallel universe as to President Obama. But it has always been that way, and will be an ongoing mystery.

I think he's a good polished speaker... but that doesn't equate to the greatest orator of our lifetime. The substance is often lacking.

 

[Moxie]

I think he's a good polished speaker... but that doesn't equate to the greatest orator of our lifetime. The substance is often lacking.

Substance? He gave one of the greatest speeches addressing race ever in the US. He's addressed beautifully the issues of senseless gun violence and gun control for a heartbroken nation. More often than he or we would have cared that he'd had to. Sure, some speeches are going to just be policy. But he speaks compellingly to the hearts of a complicated country. I don't know who you set the bar by, but I'd put him against whomever you want to offer.

 

[Moxie]

if there ever was a MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE -- of the CIA...

tha'ts obama.

Clearly, either you didn't watch the film (or the remake,) or you didn't understand it.

 

[mrzz]

but I'd put him against whomever you want to offer.

Weak competition!