The media is having a field day, literally trying to put a wedge between the right and the left and they are loving it. They are comparing what Trump did last night, to the Attorney General, to what Nixon did during the Saturday night massacre. I'm a history wonk and I love Watergate. In no way shape or form is it even close to what Nixon did but the American public just jumps on and goes with it. The media starting a discussion where there is no need for a discussion. Muddying the waters!! And where is the media's outrage that Democrats are boycotting the committee meetings for the appointees? Ratings bring dollars!!!
The media is way out of line!!
- Thread starter paul from philly
- Start date
Paul,
I agree there's a huge difference between what Nixon did and what Trump did, though I did think Trump's use of "betrayal" was over the top. The term should be reserved for people who, for instance, pass on intelligence to foreign governments.
I also agree that many media outlets over-hype events. I haven't seen many that actually said last night's firing was truly similar to what Nixon did. Think of the countless scandals, real and perceived--that have had "-gate" appended to them.
Tulla, I am sitting here watching Erin Burnett and Chris Matthews (jumping back and forth) and both shows have had a segment about how this is like Nixon. Senator Schumer used the comparison in an interview he gave! I don't know what you're missing but just google Trump and massacre! The media has been doing it all day. My point is they take a great amount of artists license much to the detriment of unbiased reporting!
Paul, I don't watch cable news very much. Most of the print media I've read--much of it online--compared the Nixon and Trump actions, as much to clarify what was different as to identify what was similar.
Schumer comparing the two events (presumably to underscore similarities) is not the media or the network comparing the two.
Paul, I'm sure you will appreciate the irony of this: http://www.vox.com/2017/1/31/14451228/sessions-yates-confirmation-trump-fired
It really does get convoluted. The one bit of knowledge I gained from this whole thing was that Alan Dershowitz said she didn't have the right because what he was doing "was" lawful. It may not have been the right thing to do or the moral thing to do but it was lawful. If it's a toss up between Trump, Yates and Alan? I'll take Alan.
I used to enjoy PBS News hour particularly when Shields of the left and Brooks from the right were on. But it's become clear Brooks doesn't like Trump and has drifted so far to the center with his disdain for Trump that it is no longer a healthy Left-Right dialogue. Too bad. Once they start acting cute....giggle, giggle....they may as well be on the jokes that are Philly's 3, 6 and10.
And with CNN editorializing to a fault, I'm left with OAN, Fox and one of the most balanced sites........RealClearPolitics.com.
Having said all that it is good to have at least a modicum of background, some knowledge of your country our politics and government to have a shallow understanding and base to not go off half-cocked like those thousands we all viewed recently in the media.
And with CNN editorializing to a fault, I'm left with OAN, Fox and one of the most balanced sites........RealClearPolitics.com.
Having said all that it is good to have at least a modicum of background, some knowledge of your country our politics and government to have a shallow understanding and base to not go off half-cocked like those thousands we all viewed recently in the media.
Stalker, I agree with you 100%. Protesting is not going to change the outcome of the election. He's our president for the next 4 years. Compromise where you can, disagree when you feel you're right but stop with the protesting. Hillary Clinton is not going to magically show up in the Oval office!
Last edited:
Paul,
I'd be much more worried if we had no protests than if we had lots of protests. There have always been protests--whether for civil rights, women's rights, religious rights, abortion rights, rights of the unborn, etc.
And at the present moment we have a particular problem. I think we can all agree that the country is roughly evenly divided. But political power resides, for reasons it would be interesting to discuss, overwhelmingly in the hands of one party. Some argue that the media is all on one side, but I would argue that that doesn't hold much water, especially if you include all the types of media across the country (radio, newspapers big and small, online sites that generate "news," etc.) Frankly, I'd rather see people arguing with each other than sitting in front of a screen "liking" views they already agree with.
Tulla, I don't know if you watch news at all. A physical violent protest at Cal Berkley protesting a speaker from Breitbart. I have some advice. Don't go to the speech!! How about that as an idea? Ransacking stores and shops during some of the marches. I'm all for discussions but put the gun down first!!
I'm guessing some news channels are giving that Berkeley protest a whole lot more coverage than others are. In relation to all the other protests of the last few weeks it would seem to be very, very small in comparison and, to the extent that it's violent, not at all typical.
The kind of violence you mention is always wrong. One kind of bias the media has is to focus on what is most visually arresting, which often includes some violence, even if it is very unrepresentative. My impression was that on election day the vast majority of people protesting in Washington were non-violent, but the footage I saw focused on a burning car, a punch that was thrown, etc. I suspect Breitbart is delighted with what happened in Berkeley since it gives the person and the site much more publicity than they would otherwise get.
It's alarming for several reasons. First, the rudeness is striking. Second, it shows contempt not just for a judge but for the whole judiciary. Let's be clear, Trump no doubt never heard of the judge before Friday night and has no idea of his record or his service. Thus, calling him a "so-called judge" because he made a decision Trump didn't like is saying that Trump does not accept that we have three equal branches of govt. Trump is saying he will respect judges only if they agree with him. This is actually terrifying. Third, saying that the judge's temporary restraining order takes law enforcement "away from our country" dangerously suggests that the judiciary has no role in law enforcement. Think of that.
Pence was asked if he agreed with or supported Trump's comment. He avoided the question. No integrity whatsoever.
Finally, the comment seems to betray real confusion about legitimacy. To say that a judge is not a real judge--but only a "so-called judge"--because he made a ruling Trump disagreed with is to suggest that he (Trump) is the one who ultimately decides questions of legitimacy. (Recall how for years he questioned Obama's legitimacy.) Of course, he could, at some level, be profoundly troubled by the reality that he lost the popular vote by three million.
You keep bringing up the fact that he lost the popular vote!! It doesn't matter. He is our president. This week you have witnessed the true basic element and genius of our constitution. Checks and balances boys, checkes and balances!! Executive, legislative and judicial watch each other. He won't get anything done because people are watching everything he's doing. Even his own party is not on board. Take a deep breath and go about your life. The sun will come up tomorrow!
Again the media is out of line reporting about the "Black Op" recently that went wrong. His first covert operation went down in flames! The people and media are saying he doesn't know what he's doing. What are ya gonna do, shit happens! Ever hear of the Bay of Pigs!
Paul,
The thrust of my post wasn't about the popular vote but about Trump's attack on the judge. If you can find any precedent for the nature of his attack ("so-called judge," "outrageous," "ridiculous") I'd love to see it. What's worrisome is that Trump seems either not to recognize how our system works (in constitutional terms) or to be simply hell bent on dismantling it. Clearly he wants to discredit the press (who play an essential role in our system) and now he is trying to subordinate the judiciary--unless they agree with him.
About the popular vote: guess who's more focused on it than I am? If he hadn't lost it, do you think there's any chance he would have made the evidence-free assertion that 3-5 million illegal votes were cast--presumably all for Clinton? There has been a relentless campaign since the election to insist that his election was a historic landslide, that he has a large mandate. As I mentioned it's Trump who is hung up on legitmacy, e.g. his prolonged "birther" campaign. When he finally acknowledged that Obama was, in fact, born in the U.S. and thus a legitimate president he said he deserved credit for clarifying the issue. That tells you--or at least it tells me--an awful lot.
If you win an election by the slimmest of circumstances (Electoral College) there are two ways you can work it. You can govern scared or timid or you can take the win and govern your way. It's a choice made by the winner. Clinton is the only president to win with less than 45% of the popular vote (41% to be exact) yet he dove right into his program (gays in the military) without a thought that he was gonna ruffle a bunch of feathers.
Of course, there is another way--neither timid nor arrogant but sensible, focused, principled but flexible, and always respectful. Calling the leader of the senate minority a clown who cries fake tears and the federal judge who issued a TRO he didn't like a "so-called judge" is far from respectful. Such behavior is unworthy of the office.
I agree to all of that. Hey look, I didn't vote for the guy. I'm just saying this Trump anxiety bullsh1t is just that. He's the president for the next four years. At the mid-terms (another excellent part of our checks and balances) change it up!!
LIBERTARIAN 2018!
If the President would let the popular vote go, the rest of us and the media would as well. Trump is the one fixated on it. He said an investigation would happen, actually said "done, it's underway". Now it seems his aids are finally getting to him. He hasn't brought it up in at least a few days. That's what it's come to with Trump. Can he not be an ass for 24-48 hours.
Not that I'm keeping score, but his supposed electorate landslide was the 3rd lowest electoral total only behind Nixon and GWB. Good company.
Trulla is spot on and you know it to be true. Trump is a brat whose never had to deal with hearing the word no. He attacks anyone who has an opposing point of view on anything...except Putin. Terrifying. GWB was infinitely more thoughtful.
Oh also, how about Trump defending Bill O'Rielly pointing out that "Putin kills people" with "Our country isn't so innocent"? Is this the start of the Trump Apology Tour?
Not that I'm keeping score, but his supposed electorate landslide was the 3rd lowest electoral total only behind Nixon and GWB. Good company.
Trulla is spot on and you know it to be true. Trump is a brat whose never had to deal with hearing the word no. He attacks anyone who has an opposing point of view on anything...except Putin. Terrifying. GWB was infinitely more thoughtful.
Oh also, how about Trump defending Bill O'Rielly pointing out that "Putin kills people" with "Our country isn't so innocent"? Is this the start of the Trump Apology Tour?
So what do you want to do? Knock on the Whitehouse door, call him on the phone, send him some flowers and ask him to leave!? Wake up tomorrow, rub a little dirt on it and go to work!!
Slow down. Breath! Mid-terms are in 2 years. Take it out on the Republican party! Nothing can happen without the consent of congress and considering he had trouble getting his education secretary through, nothing will be a slam dunk. I'd be more concerned with his Supreme Court nominations. But it seems he do OK with his first pick. Still trying to find out more about him but he could have been a disaster!!
This hasn't been a disaster? Have you seen his billionaire picks...all republicans....all woefully qualified? His military picks I'm fine with.
There you go again RTC. Stop, breath and think. Why has it been a disaster? THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING YET! So they're billionaires. So what! In some cases I'll take a billionaire's word over a lifetime politician. Kerry was a lifetime politician. How'd that work out? He was also a billionaire but only by marriage.
You think a billionaire is that different from a politician? You're ok with the Head of Education having donated $200 million to the Republican party? You're ok with the Dept of State being an oil guy with interests in Russia? You're ok with the head of Human Services who has traded stocks which his legislature impacted? Ben Carson the head of HUD? Why because he's from in inner city? And so on and so on.
Are you one of those guys who thinks Trump has enough money, he can't be corrupted or want more?
Are you one of those guys who thinks Trump has enough money, he can't be corrupted or want more?
The President, you know the amazing business mind, called one of his military advisors at 3AM to ask if it was good or bad if the US dollar was weak?
Tulla,I still owe you an answer on your earlier post, but, with regard to your above post, please cite where in the constitution the judiciary branch has been granted this power. Surely, you know about the legendary Marbury vs. Madison case, no?
It can be good or bad depending on the trend, world trade conditions, import/export balance, and many other factors that are well beyond your scope of understanding. At least Trump cared to seek an answer, rather than obama, who would likely assume that he knew the answer when, in reality, he knew absolutely nothing about economics, trade, stock or currency markets, etc. Remember the classic "profit and earning ratios" statement that he stumbled through, without any idea of that which he was speaking? No, I didn't think you would!
If you had a brain in your head, you would know that Trump was referring to the Clintons. I suspect that did not occur to you!
Let's get the facts right Reluctant. DeVos's "family", not her alone but her entire family have donated 200 million to the Republican party since the 80s. Not this year alone but over the last 37 years. What, because she donated she's ineligible to serve? James Baker was an oil guy and he served as Secretary of State. I'm sure he had dealings with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya and Russia. And I would rather have a guy who knows the head honcho. It makes communicating easier. Breath Reluctant, breath!!
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. One of the biggest criticisms about DeVos is she never attended nor sent her children to a public school. Doesn't that say she's outside of the network? I was lucky enough to be able to send my kids to parochial school and catholic high schools. Does that mean I am disqualified from having an opinion on public schools or from having an idea of what might help the public schools. My tax money still goes to them so I think I'm entitled to have a voice. Ben Carson is a surgeon for God's sake, not part of the swamp. The Secretary of State is a business man, not part of the inner workings of Washington, as Kerry was or Hillary before him.. Again, I'm not a Trump guy but so far he is doing what he said he would do.