In defence of Trump

[DrZoidberg]

Eric Weinstein made some thoughtful comments on Trump, which I think is worth discussing.

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein?lang=en

I read part of the transcript of the Trump call.

The following strikes me.

A) Trump is a true political outsider & the only one to reach the Presidency with zero government experience.

B) There is an obvious open institutional conspiracy to prevent any outsider gaining power.

C) The media was good calling out all the really bad things Trump did.

D) The media was bad calling out any positive thing Trump said or did and painted him evil.

E) Journalists in 2020 & 2016 unethically became activists misreporting a big blue wave or Hilary’s inevitable win.

F) Trump saw that there is actually an obvious conspiracy against him which is true. And inferred that it extends to the general election.

G) Trump simply doesn’t have the goods on this allegedly stolen election. He is in search mode. It’s more of a gut thing.

H) The left says “If you don’t have the goods, then it was completely free, fair and obviously so you sore loser.”

I) The right says “You guys aren’t fair about anything. Your unbiased commentary is a 24/7 open conspiracy to misrepresent the world.

...

Yes media is guilty of political agitation while enjoying the protection of neutral journalists. Yes they have conspired against him at every turn. But IT’S NOT FUNGIBLE. The anti-Trump media conspiracy is not a vote counting conspiracy. He can’t cash in one to win the other.

...

Which is to say this: we have a lot of unethical media people dancing and celebrating Trump’s loss. And it remains *possible* that we will learn something nefarious happened. But pretending now that a media conspiracy is an electoral conspiracy w/o proof is insane & outrageous.

I’m happier to see him go than I am sad to see Biden arrive. But he isn’t wrong that there was a media/institutional conspiracy. He’s wrong elsewhere: he doesn’t have the goods on electoral fraud. But the number of us who see the former conspiracy but not the latter is *tiny*.

For some reason, almost everyone I know either see two conspiracies against Trump or zero. I see only one conspiracy against him to date and it’s not fungible. His behavior is outrageous but those pointing it out as unethical have been compromised themselves by hatred. That’s it.

I agree with this. Trump's popularity, as I see it, came from him being a political outsider, challenging an openly corrupt system of an established elites, holding eachother's backs, supported by a corrupt leftist media that cares more about symbolism than content. I say this as a lefty. I see the problems of the left. It's not like we're are "the good guys". No matter if we have a lefty or conservative candidate in power, it's going to suck in some ways and be good in some ways. I see the merits of picking an outsider candidate challenging the status quo.

Anybody paying attention in the 2016 election must have realised that Hillary was the sweetheart of the media, and they used all their muscle to brainwash the American population in voting for her, in spite of most Americans (obviously in hindsight) hated her.

Yes, Trump was incompetent at playing the political game. Why? He wasn't a politician. He had no idea what he was doing. That's why he was elected. He ran USA like he would run a company. It turns out that your employee's are easier to push around than citizens of a nation.

While I think Trump was a horrendous human being, and the worst possible leader of a nation, his time in power did (and does) expose of lot of the rot that beset the American political system. And don't think that I think Europe is in anyway preferable. We have the same shit here. In most cases it's worse over here. So perhaps, in the long run, it was a good thing.

That said, I'm all in favour of a middle-class conspiracy of the educate elites clinging to power via nefarious manipulative ways, as is the case in all democratic countries. This is the only group of people who can actually run a country and should be in control. But if this group ever gets cocky and forgets they also need to serve the working classes, they should be challenged, and removed from power. I wonder if that is what lay at the core of why Trump was elected in the first place?

For all his evil he did expose a pretty ruthless leftist media conspiracy that was out to get him. I do not challenge this. I think it was pretty clear. While I agree with the goal (I too hate Trump) I also want a balanced media. I don't want my side to dominate the news reporting completely. While I'm a lefty, I also want accurate information, upon which to base my opinions. I don't think we're getting that now. And Trump in power did help reveal just how bad it really is.

So here's an unironical thank you to Trump, the narcissistic power hungry Twitter spasming, fake news spreading fucking idiot.

Even a cloud has a silver lining.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Eric Weinstein made some thoughtful comments on Trump, which I think is worth discussing.

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein?lang=en

I read part of the transcript of the Trump call.

The following strikes me.

A) Trump is a true political outsider & the only one to reach the Presidency with zero government experience.

B) There is an obvious open institutional conspiracy to prevent any outsider gaining power.

C) The media was good calling out all the really bad things Trump did.

D) The media was bad calling out any positive thing Trump said or did and painted him evil.

E) Journalists in 2020 & 2016 unethically became activists misreporting a big blue wave or Hilary’s inevitable win.

F) Trump saw that there is actually an obvious conspiracy against him which is true. And inferred that it extends to the general election.

G) Trump simply doesn’t have the goods on this allegedly stolen election. He is in search mode. It’s more of a gut thing.

H) The left says “If you don’t have the goods, then it was completely free, fair and obviously so you sore loser.”

I) The right says “You guys aren’t fair about anything. Your unbiased commentary is a 24/7 open conspiracy to misrepresent the world.

...

Yes media is guilty of political agitation while enjoying the protection of neutral journalists. Yes they have conspired against him at every turn. But IT’S NOT FUNGIBLE. The anti-Trump media conspiracy is not a vote counting conspiracy. He can’t cash in one to win the other.

...

Which is to say this: we have a lot of unethical media people dancing and celebrating Trump’s loss. And it remains *possible* that we will learn something nefarious happened. But pretending now that a media conspiracy is an electoral conspiracy w/o proof is insane & outrageous.

I’m happier to see him go than I am sad to see Biden arrive. But he isn’t wrong that there was a media/institutional conspiracy. He’s wrong elsewhere: he doesn’t have the goods on electoral fraud. But the number of us who see the former conspiracy but not the latter is *tiny*.

For some reason, almost everyone I know either see two conspiracies against Trump or zero. I see only one conspiracy against him to date and it’s not fungible. His behavior is outrageous but those pointing it out as unethical have been compromised themselves by hatred. That’s it.

I agree with this. Trump's popularity, as I see it, came from him being a political outsider, challenging an openly corrupt system of an established elites, holding eachother's backs, supported by a corrupt leftist media that cares more about symbolism than content. I say this as a lefty. I see the problems of the left. It's not like we're are "the good guys". No matter if we have a lefty or conservative candidate in power, it's going to suck in some ways and be good in some ways. I see the merits of picking an outsider candidate challenging the status quo.

Anybody paying attention in the 2016 election must have realised that Hillary was the sweetheart of the media, and they used all their muscle to brainwash the American population in voting for her, in spite of most Americans (obviously in hindsight) hated her.

Yes, Trump was incompetent at playing the political game. Why? He wasn't a politician. He had no idea what he was doing. That's why he was elected. He ran USA like he would run a company. It turns out that your employee's are easier to push around than citizens of a nation.

While I think Trump was a horrendous human being, and the worst possible leader of a nation, his time in power did (and does) expose of lot of the rot that beset the American political system. And don't think that I think Europe is in anyway preferable. We have the same shit here. In most cases it's worse over here. So perhaps, in the long run, it was a good thing.

That said, I'm all in favour of a middle-class conspiracy of the educate elites clinging to power via nefarious manipulative ways, as is the case in all democratic countries. This is the only group of people who can actually run a country and should be in control. But if this group ever gets cocky and forgets they also need to serve the working classes, they should be challenged, and removed from power. I wonder if that is what lay at the core of why Trump was elected in the first place?

For all his evil he did expose a pretty ruthless leftist media conspiracy that was out to get him. I do not challenge this. I think it was pretty clear. While I agree with the goal (I too hate Trump) I also want a balanced media. I don't want my side to dominate the news reporting completely. While I'm a lefty, I also want accurate information, upon which to base my opinions. I don't think we're getting that now. And Trump in power did help reveal just how bad it really is.

So here's an unironical thank you to Trump, the narcissistic power hungry Twitter spasming, fake news spreading fucking idiot.

Even a cloud has a silver lining.

BS! I'm the CEO of a company, and I guaranty you that most CEOs do not run their company the way that Trump does. Trump runs his "company" the way a mob boss would run it. He's a seperator. He creates chaos and confusion. His communication is poor. He tears people down and only elevates himself. To claim that he is just a typical American businessperson is just so wrong. There's a reason why most of his companies have failed. PS: Weinstein has been a closet supporter of Trump for a couple years now.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Anybody paying attention in the 2016 election must have realised that Hillary was the sweetheart of the media, and they used all their muscle to brainwash the American population in voting for her, in spite of most Americans (obviously in hindsight) hated her.

Yeah, her poor showing in the popular election revraled how much she was hated, sure.

But what media were you watching? They repeated EVERYTHING Trump said about Hillary, or any other opponent. Hus every lie, rumor, innuendo, and projection got him air time, presented without filter or question.
Right AFTER the election, they suddenly started footnoting his claims. "Today Trump said, without any evidence, that..."
You'd think an anti-Trump conspiracy would have challenged his attacks on their darling when it still mattered.

Trump has lived in the tabloid headlines most of his adult life, and is a ready manipulator of those media outlets. He was ill-prepared for the way American media treats our officials, though, and took their different expectations as a conspiracy directed at him. This is silly.
For example, anyone else running for president here, with two or three mistresses on the payroll, would have expected our press to discover this fact sooner or later. It's their function, not a hit job.
Christ, the man was here when Clinton's affairs made the headlines, he shouldn't even have acted surprised, much less persecuted.

 

[southernhybrid]

There is no defense of Trump. None. Nada. He's an incompetent, corrupt, mentally deranged man. Sometimes I pity him because he is a victim of mental illness. Still, it's hard to pity a sociopath.

It's the people who enabled him and put their power before the interests of the majority of the American people who have some explaining to do. Just like other autocratic leaders before him, he had a way of manipulating people.

Some supported him for their own selfish reasons, as he helped lower taxes on the wealthiest among us. Some supported him because they didn't know any better or they felt that they were being diminished by highly educated progressives and Trump was their payback. Some supported him because he promised them conservative judges that might be able to overturn things like the right of women to continue to have reproductive freedom. Some knew him from reality tv, and they had become fans of his based on his tv show. And there were even some men who were caught up in the machismo or macho thing. That group probably saw him as the alpha male, who would rescue men from feminism.

In the end, there is nothing to defend. He caused more division in an already fragile democracy than I've seen in my lifetime. Sorry, but I find any defense of Trump to be unwarranted.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Anybody paying attention in the 2016 election must have realised that Hillary was the sweetheart of the media, and they used all their muscle to brainwash the American population in voting for her, in spite of most Americans (obviously in hindsight) hated her.

Yeah, her poor showing in the popular election revraled how much she was hated, sure.

But what media were you watching? They repeated EVERYTHING Trump said about Hillary, or any other opponent. Hus every lie, rumor, innuendo, and projection got him air time, presented without filter or question.
Right AFTER the election, they suddenly started footnoting his claims. "Today Trump said, without any evidence, that..."
You'd think an anti-Trump conspiracy would have challenged his attacks on their darling when it still mattered.

Trump has lived in the tabloid headlines most of his adult life, and is a ready manipulator of those media outlets. He was ill-prepared for the way American media treats our officials, though, and took their different expectations as a conspiracy directed at him. This is silly.
For example, anyone else running for president here, with two or three mistresses on the payroll, would have expected our press to discover this fact sooner or later. It's their function, not a hit job.
Christ, the man was here when Clinton's affairs made the headlines, he shouldn't even have acted surprised, much less persecuted.

I think there is a leftist media conspiracy, of the simple reason that journalism is a humanities subject and humanities people are overwhelmingly leftist. Leftists are, overall, better writers, and will therefore get more media attention (even when wrong). When Trump says there's a media conspiracy against him, I agree with that. The fact that he's an utter moron who deserves most of the negative things written against him, doesn't make the conspiracy against him any less real. Both can be true.

 

[cycomiko]

Anybody paying attention in the 2016 election must have realised that Hillary was the sweetheart of the media, and they used all their muscle to brainwash the American population in voting for her, in spite of most Americans (obviously in hindsight) hated her.

Yeah, her poor showing in the popular election revraled how much she was hated, sure.

But what media were you watching? They repeated EVERYTHING Trump said about Hillary, or any other opponent. Hus every lie, rumor, innuendo, and projection got him air time, presented without filter or question.
Right AFTER the election, they suddenly started footnoting his claims. "Today Trump said, without any evidence, that..."
You'd think an anti-Trump conspiracy would have challenged his attacks on their darling when it still mattered.

Trump has lived in the tabloid headlines most of his adult life, and is a ready manipulator of those media outlets. He was ill-prepared for the way American media treats our officials, though, and took their different expectations as a conspiracy directed at him. This is silly.
For example, anyone else running for president here, with two or three mistresses on the payroll, would have expected our press to discover this fact sooner or later. It's their function, not a hit job.
Christ, the man was here when Clinton's affairs made the headlines, he shouldn't even have acted surprised, much less persecuted.

I think there is a leftist media conspiracy, of the simple reason that journalism is a humanities subject and humanities people are overwhelmingly leftist. Leftists are, overall, better writers, and will therefore get more media attention (even when wrong). When Trump says there's a media conspiracy against him, I agree with that. The fact that he's an utter moron who deserves most of the negative things written against him, doesn't make the conspiracy against him any less real. Both can be true.

Just because the people in the media trend liberal doesn't actually make it a conspiracy, right? A conspiracy is an organized attempt to do something. Actual journalists have been very good about being impartial throughout the last 4 years. Talk show hosts are a different story and unfortunately that's where people think is news these days. Real journalism still exists and that's where many of us "leftists" get our news.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is no defense of Trump. None. Nada. He's an incompetent, corrupt, mentally deranged man. Sometimes I pity him because he is a victim of mental illness. Still, it's hard to pity a sociopath.

It's the people who enabled him and put their power before the interests of the majority of the American people who have some explaining to do. Just like other autocratic leaders before him, he had a way of manipulating people.

Some supported him for their own selfish reasons, as he helped lower taxes on the wealthiest among us. Some supported him because they didn't know any better or they felt that they were being diminished by highly educated progressives and Trump was their payback. Some supported him because he promised them conservative judges that might be able to overturn things like the right of women to continue to have reproductive freedom. Some knew him from reality tv, and they had become fans of his based on his tv show. And there were even some men who were caught up in the machismo or macho thing. That group probably saw him as the alpha male, who would rescue men from feminism.

In the end, there is nothing to defend. He caused more division in an already fragile democracy than I've seen in my lifetime. Sorry, but I find any defense of Trump to be unwarranted.

So you don't think there was any reasonable motivation for anybody voting Trump over Hillary? Was it simply the fact that half of all Americans are evil and corrupt that led to him being elected? While it's seductive to see him as a great showman and manipulator, I can't see it. The man is clearly an idiot, incapable of deception. His attempts to manipulate various votings all backfired spectacularly. I think he won because most Americans disliked Hillary more. It's interesting to discuss, why that is? She was obviously competent at the job. She had the brains and experience. So a distrust of her abilities wasn't it.

I think it's worth bringing up cancel culture and woke. Today the left control the public discourse to the point where we can bully anybody out of a platform. We are threatening free speech. It is a real problem today. A problem that we in the left have created. That is a real thing. Even me, a lefty, find that objectionable and something I want to fight against. Biden has even promised to stop fake news and such. While I dislike fake news, I dislike attempts to stop it more. At least Trump wasn't going to do that. I understand his appeal. I would never support him. I think he's evil incarnate. But I still understand why he has allies.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think there is a leftist media conspiracy, of the simple reason that journalism is a humanities subject and humanities people are overwhelmingly leftist. Leftists are, overall, better writers, and will therefore get more media attention (even when wrong).

This is circumstantial. You believe in a conspiracy because these are the people most likely to participate in one, if it were real?

When Trump says there's a media conspiracy against him, I agree with that. The fact that he's an utter moron who deserves most of the negative things written against him, doesn't make the conspiracy against him any less real. Both can be true.

Occam's Razor, though. We don t need a conspiracy to explsin anything the media has done to The Danger Yam in the last 4 years. We actually have evidence counter to the conspiracy if we include their response to his campaign 5 years ago, the unfiltered quoting.

But even if every reporter in their heart wanted von Fuckstick dead, we don't have a conspiracy unless you can actually show cases where they suppressed complimentary news or lied about missteps.
Reporting his actions, especially the stupid, evil, or illegal ones, is their actual job.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think there is a leftist media conspiracy, of the simple reason that journalism is a humanities subject and humanities people are overwhelmingly leftist. Leftists are, overall, better writers, and will therefore get more media attention (even when wrong). When Trump says there's a media conspiracy against him, I agree with that. The fact that he's an utter moron who deserves most of the negative things written against him, doesn't make the conspiracy against him any less real. Both can be true.

Just because the people in the media trend liberal doesn't actually make it a conspiracy, right? A conspiracy is an organized attempt to do something. Actual journalists have been very good about being impartial throughout the last 4 years. Talk show hosts are a different story and unfortunately that's where people think is news these days. Real journalism still exists and that's where many of us "leftists" get our news.

I disagree. Media is the fifth political pillar of a democracy. If they have a trend it's a conspiracy. What we need for a functioning democracy is wide news coverage spanning the whole political spectrum. We're not getting that today.

In Sweden it's quite extreme. Where extremist intersectional feminists completely control public service. I can see up close and personal the horrors of how bad it can get if an extremist group seize political power this way. In Sweden the inevitable results will be that they get their funding cut. That's where public opinion is heading. BBC, has taken a sharp turn toward the left the last 10 years. It's far from the craziness of Swedish state media. But it's still remarkable, that public funds are used to promote a specific ideology. Even if I agree with the ideology promoted, (which I do) I don't like this trend. It's totally a conspiracy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is no defense of Trump. None. Nada. He's an incompetent, corrupt, mentally deranged man. Sometimes I pity him because he is a victim of mental illness. Still, it's hard to pity a sociopath.

It's the people who enabled him and put their power before the interests of the majority of the American people who have some explaining to do. Just like other autocratic leaders before him, he had a way of manipulating people.

Some supported him for their own selfish reasons, as he helped lower taxes on the wealthiest among us. Some supported him because they didn't know any better or they felt that they were being diminished by highly educated progressives and Trump was their payback. Some supported him because he promised them conservative judges that might be able to overturn things like the right of women to continue to have reproductive freedom. Some knew him from reality tv, and they had become fans of his based on his tv show. And there were even some men who were caught up in the machismo or macho thing. That group probably saw him as the alpha male, who would rescue men from feminism.

In the end, there is nothing to defend. He caused more division in an already fragile democracy than I've seen in my lifetime. Sorry, but I find any defense of Trump to be unwarranted.

So you don't think there was any reasonable motivation for anybody voting Trump over Hillary? Was it simply the fact that half of all Americans are evil and corrupt that led to him being elected? While it's seductive to see him as a great showman and manipulator, I can't see it. The man is clearly an idiot, incapable of deception. His attempts to manipulate various votings all backfired spectacularly. I think he won because most Americans disliked Hillary more. It's interesting to discuss, why that is? She was obviously competent at the job. She had the brains and experience. So a distrust of her abilities wasn't it.

I think it's worth bringing up cancel culture and woke. Today the left control the public discourse to the point where we can bully anybody out of a platform. We are threatening free speech. It is a real problem today. A problem that we in the left have created. That is a real thing. Even me, a lefty, find that objectionable and something I want to fight against. Biden has even promised to stop fake news and such. While I dislike fake news, I dislike attempts to stop it more. At least Trump wasn't going to do that. I understand his appeal. I would never support him. I think he's evil incarnate. But I still understand why he has allies.

Could you define 'free speech,' please?
See, if i own or run a media outlet, and i refuse to publish, say, a Nazi's screed, am i trampling on his free speech? Or is the decision not to give him a platform my free speech choice?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There is no defense of Trump. None. Nada. He's an incompetent, corrupt, mentally deranged man. Sometimes I pity him because he is a victim of mental illness. Still, it's hard to pity a sociopath.

It's the people who enabled him and put their power before the interests of the majority of the American people who have some explaining to do. Just like other autocratic leaders before him, he had a way of manipulating people.

Some supported him for their own selfish reasons, as he helped lower taxes on the wealthiest among us. Some supported him because they didn't know any better or they felt that they were being diminished by highly educated progressives and Trump was their payback. Some supported him because he promised them conservative judges that might be able to overturn things like the right of women to continue to have reproductive freedom. Some knew him from reality tv, and they had become fans of his based on his tv show. And there were even some men who were caught up in the machismo or macho thing. That group probably saw him as the alpha male, who would rescue men from feminism.

In the end, there is nothing to defend. He caused more division in an already fragile democracy than I've seen in my lifetime. Sorry, but I find any defense of Trump to be unwarranted.

So you don't think there was any reasonable motivation for anybody voting Trump over Hillary? Was it simply the fact that half of all Americans are evil and corrupt that led to him being elected? While it's seductive to see him as a great showman and manipulator, I can't see it. The man is clearly an idiot, incapable of deception. His attempts to manipulate various votings all backfired spectacularly. I think he won because most Americans disliked Hillary more. It's interesting to discuss, why that is? She was obviously competent at the job. She had the brains and experience. So a distrust of her abilities wasn't it.

I think it's worth bringing up cancel culture and woke. Today the left control the public discourse to the point where we can bully anybody out of a platform. We are threatening free speech. It is a real problem today. A problem that we in the left have created. That is a real thing. Even me, a lefty, find that objectionable and something I want to fight against. Biden has even promised to stop fake news and such. While I dislike fake news, I dislike attempts to stop it more. At least Trump wasn't going to do that. I understand his appeal. I would never support him. I think he's evil incarnate. But I still understand why he has allies.

The only reason Trump has allies is because they have the same persecution complex, other than political opportunists of course. They are also hypocrites of the highest order. They are also uninformed and scientifically illiterate and driven by their emotions only, which is why they are so easily taken by conspiracy thinking. Can I say it? They're not very smart people, cleverness aside. Trump lost the popular vote twice and only because of a quirk of our politics did he get elected the first time. He's a narcissistic, sociopathic, hateful person who cheats his way through life and uses people for his purposes only. He associated with criminals. He is not interested in expanding his popularity, he is interested in belittling his enemies repeatedly, like a ten-year-old child.

Feeling sorry for this asshole is like feeling sorry for that poor misunderstood German Fuhrer.

 

[cycomiko]

I think there is a leftist media conspiracy, of the simple reason that journalism is a humanities subject and humanities people are overwhelmingly leftist. Leftists are, overall, better writers, and will therefore get more media attention (even when wrong). When Trump says there's a media conspiracy against him, I agree with that. The fact that he's an utter moron who deserves most of the negative things written against him, doesn't make the conspiracy against him any less real. Both can be true.

Just because the people in the media trend liberal doesn't actually make it a conspiracy, right? A conspiracy is an organized attempt to do something. Actual journalists have been very good about being impartial throughout the last 4 years. Talk show hosts are a different story and unfortunately that's where people think is news these days. Real journalism still exists and that's where many of us "leftists" get our news.

I disagree. Media is the fifth political pillar of a democracy. If they have a trend it's a conspiracy. What we need for a functioning democracy is wide news coverage spanning the whole political spectrum. We're not getting that today.

In Sweden it's quite extreme. Where extremist intersectional feminists completely control public service. I can see up close and personal the horrors of how bad it can get if an extremist group seize political power this way. In Sweden the inevitable results will be that they get their funding cut. That's where public opinion is heading. BBC, has taken a sharp turn toward the left the last 10 years. It's far from the craziness of Swedish state media. But it's still remarkable, that public funds are used to promote a specific ideology. Even if I agree with the ideology promoted, (which I do) I don't like this trend. It's totally a conspiracy.

I take your point but we're disagreeing on what a conspiracy is.

Here in the US there isn't really any publicly funded media so people are completely free to spout off whatever crazy bullshit they want until they get to the point of extremism and beginning to incite violence. Legally anyone is allowed to start a news channel and say whatever they want. NPR stations here go through great lengths to allow both sides to express views and they only shut down one side if it's an obvious and demonstrable lie. Sometimes the lengths NPR goes to in order to allow an opposing side to speak is excruciating. Just allowing opinions from all sides to be heard should never be a problem. Allowing people to straight lie to others in order to influence their actions is getting into a different realm.

If we can all agree on facts again and THEN start diverging in political opinion then we're all good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think there is a leftist media conspiracy, of the simple reason that journalism is a humanities subject and humanities people are overwhelmingly leftist. Leftists are, overall, better writers, and will therefore get more media attention (even when wrong).

This is circumstantial. You believe in a conspiracy because these are the people most likely to participate in one, if it were real?

I think it's beyond question. This is a conspiracy not hidden in any way. If you go to BBC News and take a look at the articles, it's heavy on the coverage of minorities slanted in their favour. Nobody needs to work hard to uncover this conspiracy. It's in broad daylight. Medias attacks on Trump revealed, just how biased the reporting is.

Again... I don't support Trump. I think he's an awful person. But I do think there's things about the world we've learned from him being the president. He's helped reveal some very nasty things about the left we shouldn't be proud about.

When Trump says there's a media conspiracy against him, I agree with that. The fact that he's an utter moron who deserves most of the negative things written against him, doesn't make the conspiracy against him any less real. Both can be true.

Occam's Razor, though. We don t need a conspiracy to explsin anything the media has done to The Danger Yam in the last 4 years. We actually have evidence counter to the conspiracy if we include their response to his campaign 5 years ago, the unfiltered quoting.

But even if every reporter in their heart wanted von Fuckstick dead, we don't have a conspiracy unless you can actually show cases where they suppressed complimentary news or lied about falsehoods.
Reporting his actions, especially the stupid, evil, or illegal ones, is their actual job.

Every news piece written supresses some information. That's their jobs. To sift out and decide what is relevant to report on and what isn't. And every news piece slants the story one way or another. And they all tell a story. Some stories, as they are happening, don't have a coherrent narrative yet, so the journalist needs to make one up to make the story readable. So that's no evidence of much.

It's more like, when angry minorities or feminists are on TV they are given soft ball questions by a crony journalist. When it's a right winger, they get a hard hitting opponent journalist trying to rip them apart. I'm not saying right wing journalism doesn't do this as well. Fox News is absolutely rediculous. It's just that there's more leftist media. It's all completely dominant now. And that's a problem for democracy IMHO.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I disagree. Media is the fifth political pillar of a democracy. If they have a trend it's a conspiracy. What we need for a functioning democracy is wide news coverage spanning the whole political spectrum. We're not getting that today.

In Sweden it's quite extreme. Where extremist intersectional feminists completely control public service. I can see up close and personal the horrors of how bad it can get if an extremist group seize political power this way. In Sweden the inevitable results will be that they get their funding cut. That's where public opinion is heading. BBC, has taken a sharp turn toward the left the last 10 years. It's far from the craziness of Swedish state media. But it's still remarkable, that public funds are used to promote a specific ideology. Even if I agree with the ideology promoted, (which I do) I don't like this trend. It's totally a conspiracy.

I take your point but we're disagreeing on what a conspiracy is.

Here in the US there isn't really any publicly funded media so people are completely free to spout off whatever crazy bullshit they want until they get to the point of extremism and beginning to incite violence. Legally anyone is allowed to start a news channel and say whatever they want. NPR stations here go through great lengths to allow both sides to express views and they only shut down one side if it's an obvious and demonstrable lie. Sometimes the lengths NPR goes to in order to allow an opposing side to speak is excruciating. Just allowing opinions from all sides to be heard should never be a problem. Allowing people to straight lie to others in order to influence their actions is getting into a different realm.

If we can all agree on facts again and THEN start diverging in political opinion then we're all good.

I love that about America and I love NPR for that reason. So I think we are agreeing on the important things.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I agree with this.

I agree with a small part of it. It is a right-wing talking point, though, to call "the media" the stuff it is being called. There isn't really a monolithic media and it is most often conservative snowflakes who rail against "the media" or "mainstream media" as if it is one leftist entity. I'd say that many of the criticisms could rationally be lodged against CNN in particular. Much of the infotainment is also conservative-biased and pushing outright lies to support Trump.

Trump's popularity, as I see it, came from him being a political outsider, ...

Full stop. Trump wasn't a political outsider. He was a political elite. He was being groomed to be a politician for decades and he was donating to campaigns and going to elite parties with politicians for decades. Prior to all that his father was politically connected and that grew into connections for Donald like Roy Cohn and Roger Stone.

 

[Angry Floof]

Trump's popularity came from ignorance, bigotry, and right wing media relentlessly pummeling the animal brain prejudices of the least aware among us for decades and rising to fever pitch under Trump. He's a reflection of humanity's worst thought and behavior, fear, selfishness, greed, stupidity, pack mentality, hubris, authoritarianism, and superiority complex. Any commentary about the rise of Trump that doesn't acknowledge this is at best unrealistic, at worst just as delusional as Trump himself and useless in terms of learning from this low point in US history.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Every news piece written supresses some information. That's their jobs. To sift out and decide what is relevant to report on and what isn't. And every news piece slants the story one way or another. And they all tell a story. Some stories, as they are happening, don't have a coherrent narrative yet, so the journalist needs to make one up to make the story readable. So that's no evidence of much.

It's more like, when angry minorities or feminists are on TV they are given soft ball questions by a crony journalist. When it's a right winger, they get a hard hitting opponent journalist trying to rip them apart. I'm not saying right wing journalism doesn't do this as well. Fox News is absolutely rediculous. It's just that there's more leftist media. It's all completely dominant now. And that's a problem for democracy IMHO.

Actual cases. Examples. If this is so blatant, point to a single, verifiable instance where an important news fact of something good Trump did was not carried by any media, or at least not by the 'left's' media.
Or, one case of something bad he did not actually do that all the media took as gospel, and presented as verified fact to the public.
Because i don't see it, and feel you've been taken in by RW whining.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow... this OP Is like 3 years too late. The reason to fear a Trump presidency was completely justified by his Presidency. It is why people like me who had Biden near the basement of their preferred candidates, was so driven to vote for him.

 

[cycomiko]

I disagree. Media is the fifth political pillar of a democracy. If they have a trend it's a conspiracy. What we need for a functioning democracy is wide news coverage spanning the whole political spectrum. We're not getting that today.

In Sweden it's quite extreme. Where extremist intersectional feminists completely control public service. I can see up close and personal the horrors of how bad it can get if an extremist group seize political power this way. In Sweden the inevitable results will be that they get their funding cut. That's where public opinion is heading. BBC, has taken a sharp turn toward the left the last 10 years. It's far from the craziness of Swedish state media. But it's still remarkable, that public funds are used to promote a specific ideology. Even if I agree with the ideology promoted, (which I do) I don't like this trend. It's totally a conspiracy.

I take your point but we're disagreeing on what a conspiracy is.

Here in the US there isn't really any publicly funded media so people are completely free to spout off whatever crazy bullshit they want until they get to the point of extremism and beginning to incite violence. Legally anyone is allowed to start a news channel and say whatever they want. NPR stations here go through great lengths to allow both sides to express views and they only shut down one side if it's an obvious and demonstrable lie. Sometimes the lengths NPR goes to in order to allow an opposing side to speak is excruciating. Just allowing opinions from all sides to be heard should never be a problem. Allowing people to straight lie to others in order to influence their actions is getting into a different realm.

If we can all agree on facts again and THEN start diverging in political opinion then we're all good.

I love that about America and I love NPR for that reason. So I think we are agreeing on the important things.

I agree that we agree on the important stuff and I think everyone else in this thread generally agrees as well.

Where I think the disconnect is that, while we all think that hearing various political opinions is a good thing, we can't allow varying facts to be presented as legitimate. News media should first present the agreed-upon facts then present the political opinions from the entire spectrum. For instance, we all agree that something should be done about the homeless population. Now give equal time to varying views on how exactly to fix such things. HOWEVER, we shouldn't be given equal time to people who say an election was fraudulent or the earth is flat or climate change isn't real etc etc. If "alternative facts" start being brought up then we shouldn't be acting like that's on the same level of legitimacy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Every news piece written supresses some information. That's their jobs. To sift out and decide what is relevant to report on and what isn't. And every news piece slants the story one way or another. And they all tell a story. Some stories, as they are happening, don't have a coherrent narrative yet, so the journalist needs to make one up to make the story readable. So that's no evidence of much.

It's more like, when angry minorities or feminists are on TV they are given soft ball questions by a crony journalist. When it's a right winger, they get a hard hitting opponent journalist trying to rip them apart. I'm not saying right wing journalism doesn't do this as well. Fox News is absolutely rediculous. It's just that there's more leftist media. It's all completely dominant now. And that's a problem for democracy IMHO.

Actual cases. Examples. If this is so blatant, point to a single, verifiable instance where an important news fact of something good Trump did was not carried by any media, or at least not by the 'left's' media.

There was an interview on NPR with a Red Hat who had slowly gone far right. She noted that the people she talked to didn't know about those huge peace treaties Trump was responsible for with Israel.

There people have no idea what they are talking about, and then use whatever they can to justify their position. The fact is, those three "peace" deals were in fact reported by the media. It is why every one here knows about them.

There seems to this issue that the press was antagonistic with Trump. Well, they were, in the sense that Trump kept doing crazy shit. We have a thread dedicated to the simple stupid. Then there was all the illegal shit.

What good did Trump do? He didn't accomplish much in office! All of the accomplishments were judicial and that was McConnell's doing, and then there was the gargantuan tax cut. That was it. Otherwise, he was being played, illegal tariffs, not shutting up about the fucking wall, renegotiating NAFTA with Mexico alone and screwing with Canada (our largest trade partner)...

It was one damn thing after the other. Three impeachable events! Russia investigation obstruction, Ukraine, Inciting a Riot at the Capitol Bldg.

Trump didn't fix health care, didn't even try. No free trade deals with anyone. No long-term trade fixes with China. He made things worse with Iran. Made a mess in North Korea. The media didn't fail to report good stuff, there was very little good stuff!