President Donald Trump and his Administration

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

As the age-old saying goes...

Be careful what you wish for.

A lot of the hysteria about Trump is grossly distorted news, or "fake news" which is the new phrase going around. Thing is the media just had a broomstick shoved up their *** since Trump won, so now they will double down on this farce.

Even now, when I had just finished washing up in my home, the first thing that came on in Channel 4 news (UK news show) is Donald Trump being debriefed by the 3 heads of the various intelligence agencies alleging Russian hacking. Their bias and desperation has become so strong... It feels like watching North Korean TV; this obsession with Trump is truly bizarre. But I think it boils down to this: he humiliated MSM so MSM are going to do their utmost to humiliate Trump.

Or even more simply: Trump hurt them so MSM are going to hurt him back.

2017 Western MSM news everyone.

[APSMS 1,893]

1 hour ago, Ln X said:

Or even more simply: Trump hurt them so MSM are going to hurt him back.

2017 Western MSM news everyone.

Something tells me this is going to be a losing battle.

 

For them, not him, that is.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

2 hours ago, Ln X said:

As the age-old saying goes...

Be careful what you wish for.

A lot of the hysteria about Trump is grossly distorted news, or "fake news" which is the new phrase going around. Thing is the media just had a broomstick shoved up their *** since Trump won, so now they will double down on this farce.

Even now, when I had just finished washing up in my home, the first thing that came on in Channel 4 news (UK news show) is Donald Trump being debriefed by the 3 heads of the various intelligence agencies alleging Russian hacking. Their bias and desperation has become so strong... It feels like watching North Korean TV; this obsession with Trump is truly bizarre. But I think it boils down to this: he humiliated MSM so MSM are going to do their utmost to humiliate Trump.

Or even more simply: Trump hurt them so MSM are going to hurt him back.

2017 Western MSM news everyone.

Trump didn't even really do anything to hurt MSM, they hurt themselves. Trump was merely a conduit through which people could see how agenda driven the media was. That doesn't mean Trump is perfect or shouldn't be criticized at all, but the lengths at which they'll go to nitpick and spin is over the top to the point where people legitimately think Trump is going to open up concentration camps and institutionalize shock therapy for LGBTQ people. That hysteria is leading to real world derangement.

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 30-12-2016 at 5:56 PM, APSMS said:

To be fair, it was called the War Department until WWII. They changed it for purely propaganda reasons. It's not we style our military a "self-defense force". 

Ironically, after naming it the war department we became more aggressive rather than less. Previous American aggression was usually very measured and only involved short fights that we could be assured of winning quickly and with minimal casualties. I mean to say, we were very aggressive but styling our war machine a defense department pretended to give them legitimacy but also removed the inhibitors guiding them towards limited engagements. Admittedly the world was different, but our empire building methods merely changed, and not substantially, in the new world order.

You could say brute force and. Limited engagements were no longer possible, but that shouldn't justify the tens of thousands of Americans, and millions of foreign narionals that died as a result of faulty American interventionism.

I don't think thats exactly true. A limited and quick war has a few requirements. Most importantly, such wars must have very clearly defined goals that are limited in scope. Second, they must be fought by professional or semi professional armies. Third is that both armies play with the same rule book, that is, Sun Tzu and Von Clauswitz. They both advise that speed is of the essence and prolonged warfare benefits no one. In practice this has resulted in a military strategy that focuses on escalation and seeking decisive battles. If both sides do this, then whoever wins these decisive battles also wins the war. 

So when all of these conditions are met, you get a limited and rather quick war. And sometimes this still happens. Think of NATO's involvement over Libya. The goal was clearly defined, namely destroy Gaddaffi's military assets. It was fought between two (professional) armies, namely the Libyan military and NATO. And NATO's air capabilities allowed them to deal decisive blows to the Libyan military assets. Another great example of a quick and decisive war was the First Gulf War. The goal was again clearly defined, namely kick out Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It was again fought by two professional armies. And the allied offensive was based around getting Iraqs forces to engage them in decisive battles. Either way, the war was over 100 hours after it started. 

So why then the prolonged conflicts? Well, in all cases one of more of the three conditions aren't met. This started with WW1. While the second and third condition were met, the first wasn't. Its the first total war and total wars have ill defined objectives. The total annihilation of your opponent? Yeah, nearly impossible to achieve quickly especially when you are fighting someone with equal military capabilities. This is also true for WW2 although the objectives of that war, at least for the Germans were even more unrealistic. Still, an unconditional surrender from the Axis powers isn't an easy thing to achieve for the allies either. Also a factor in a total war is that its total in every sense of the word. It involves the entire population and the entire economy. I suppose 4 and 6 years is actually still pretty quick.

Leaving the total wars, we get to the more nebulous conflicts like Vietnam. Well, here again the strategic objectives of the war aren't exactly clear. America wasn't trying to conquer North Vietnam, it was sort of trying to stop communism from taking over the South? Thats about as open ended as an objective as 'destroying terror' is for the war on terror. Also, in this case the third condition isn't met, both sides are not playing by the same rulebook. Where the US is constantly trying to draw the Vietnamese into fighting decisive battles, the Vietnamese forces are consistently avoiding those types of battles, drawing out the conflict and nullifying the 'speed' advantage that the US has.

And now the War on Terror. Open ended objective, involves a lot of non military groups and all sides play with different rule books. Yeah, this one could literally take forever. 

On 31-12-2016 at 4:34 AM, APSMS said:

LexusInfernus and I have slowly come to an agreement about politics that we mostly disagree on semantics and agree on the broad stokes (I think). The point is to have discussion about politics and talk about it, in an environment that promotes constructive arguments and happens to be heavily moderated.

Why thank you  Also, its fine if people disagree on the broad strokes as well. I personally find it interesting to read other peoples point of view, even if I disagree. 

On 3-1-2017 at 6:59 PM, MilitantRadical said:

I still hypothesize that had we seen RNC e-mails they would only have bolstered Trump's support because at the time of the leaks or hacks the Republican establishment was firmly against him. I also think the only reason the RNC helped Trump was because they didn't want him to run as an independent against their preferred candidate.

Maybe, but we will never know because the hackers decided not to leak the stuff they got on the RNC. 

On 3-1-2017 at 6:59 PM, MilitantRadical said:

My point is that while Trump did mention these things it wasn't the entire focus of his campaign. The majority of his speeches weren't about evil Mexicans and Muslims, they were about helping people.

Trump never talked about putting Muslims in concentration camps. The fact that you think he did proves my point about the media "disclaimers" on his campaign.

I don't think it matters that Trump only sometimes said some very racist and bigoted things. He said them, repeatedly. So often in fact that this is what a lot of people remember when they think about Trump. Often enough to get people who happen to be Mexican or Muslim very scared. So no, hes does not deserve a free pass on this just because he also said a lot of other things that weren't so bad. 

And true, Trump doesn't, but his supporters do. Whether he wants it or not, his words have attracted a certain audience and they certainly seem to think that putting people in camps is a great idea. 

On 3-1-2017 at 6:59 PM, MilitantRadical said:

You said Hillary was an "experienced policy nerd" and I wanted to know what in your educated opinion qualified her to be one. However you couldn't think of one or explain it in your own words instead referencing a highly partisan source.

And then I posted a not at all partisan source which shows you everything she ever did when she was a senator. Which happens to be quite a bit. So I would say she has nailed the experience part as well as the policy nerd part. For other reasons why she is experienced, see her entire career as public servant/FLOTUS. For the policy nerd bit, see her long boring speeches filled with detailed plans for what she wants to do if and when she got elected. 

On 3-1-2017 at 6:59 PM, MilitantRadical said:

I think we've all fallen victim to our own prejudices at one time or another. Heck, look at the Politico article you sourced for Hillary's accomplishments.

That isn't exactly fake news. Its an opinion piece. And sure, you can disagree with their opinions, but its not made up nonsense like the pizza basement pedophile ring. 

On 3-1-2017 at 6:59 PM, MilitantRadical said:

Again, Trump didn't hire Goldman Sachs, he hired individuals who worked for it. I agree, the optics aren't great. In fact Rand Paul made quite a funny tweet on the subject that went something along the lines of: "I haven't seen so many billionaires in one place since I staked out Bilderberg with Alex Jones."

They should be watched closely, but I don't think having worked for GS makes them inherently nefarious.

Right, but giving a paid speech to Goldman Sachs does make you nefarious. Sorry but I have trouble with the cognitive dissonance here. If Hillary gets involved with GS, shes selling out America to corporate interests, if Trump does it, hes hiring people with professional experience who know how the financial system works? How does that make sense. This is just measuring people by two completely different standards, one being that everything that Hillary does is awful and everything Trump does is genius. 

On 3-1-2017 at 6:59 PM, MilitantRadical said:

Right because there is no big-money behind climate change research and environmentalist movements. It's just pure science, no agendas, none whatsoever.

Big money from who? Hippie billionaires? What corporate interest gets served when scientists talk about the end of the world? 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

5 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Maybe, but we will never know because the hackers decided not to leak the stuff they got on the RNC.

But you don't even know if either the DNC or RNC were hacked for an absolute fact. Again, no evidence has been presented to the public, only hearsay by intel agencies.

5 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

I don't think it matters that Trump only sometimes said some very racist and bigoted things. He said them, repeatedly. So often in fact that this is what a lot of people remember when they think about Trump.

No, it wasn't the majority of his campaign. The media repeated and spun his comments more than he actually made those comments.

5 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

So no, hes does not deserve a free pass on this just because he also said a lot of other things that weren't so bad. 

Not saying you have to give him a free pass, just admit his campaign was just as much about helping people as Hillary's if not more so.

5 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

And true, Trump doesn't, but his supporters do. Whether he wants it or not, his words have attracted a certain audience and they certainly seem to think that putting people in camps is a great idea.

Whatever, he didn't say "put people in camps". He didn't say many of the things you claim he said which proves my point that the media narrative of his alleged biggoted statement overshadowed his actual campaign in the minds of people like you who want nothing but to hate the guy. Those narratives appealed to your partisan worldview and you've clung to them, true or not.

5 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

And then I posted a not at all partisan source which shows you everything she ever did when she was a senator. Which happens to be quite a bit. So I would say she has nailed the experience part as well as the policy nerd part. For other reasons why she is experienced, see her entire career as public servant/FLOTUS. For the policy nerd bit, see her long boring speeches filled with detailed plans for what she wants to do if and when she got elected.

I don't deny Hillary did stuff. I just wanted to know what in your mind qualified her to be considered a "policy nerd" yet you couldn't answer. What was, in your opinion, Hillary's best policy and why?

Trust me, no one is going to be asking Hillary for policy advice like a Kissenger or Brzezinski. She has no political insight aside from that which is fed in to her by her CFR and Trillateral overlords.

5 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

That isn't exactly fake news. Its an opinion piece. And sure, you can disagree with their opinions, but its not made up nonsense like the pizza basement pedophile ring.

I didn't say it was "fake news", just that it was an obvious fluff piece that lined up with your world view.

I think you've kind of mischaracterized the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, but I'm not going to defend it because I don't think there is sufficient evidence to prove it.

5 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

 Right, but giving a paid speech to Goldman Sachs does make you nefarious. Sorry but I have trouble with the cognitive dissonance here.

I realize this is the logic of some Trump supporters, but I've never said that giving a speech to Goldman Sachs made her nefarious. It's what she potentially said to them and the private nature of those speeches that were in question. As I recall it was the Sanders camp that initially pressed the issue of releasing transcripts of those speeches.

5 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

If Hillary gets involved with GS, shes selling out America to corporate interests, if Trump does it, hes hiring people with professional experience who know how the financial system works? How does that make sense. This is just measuring people by two completely different standards, one being that everything that Hillary does is awful and everything Trump does is genius.

You're confusing my argument. I don't want a politician to work for or take orders from Goldman Sachs.

The difference is, at least in terms of perception and what people hope Trump will do, that Hillary Clinton would be working for Goldman Sachs whereas they would be working for Trump and by proxy the American people.

Clinton works for Goldman Sachs, former GS employees work for Trump. See the distinction?

6 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Big money from who? Hippie billionaires? What corporate interest gets served when scientists talk about the end of the world? 

Yeah 'cause Soros, The Rockefellers, The Rothschilds, and Royal Families of Europe are such big hippies. Sorry, the top strata of wealth in this world support and fund research in to AGW, and in fact they created the modern environmental movements. Why? Because policies designed to mitigate AGW are just tools of social controls and mechanisms with which they can maintain monopolies of energy markets as well as enrich themselves through carbon trading. Political parties are also highly invested because they have money in their eyes when they think about the tax revenue they can generate from carbon pricing. It's an obvious cult-like apocalypse theory scam. "Give me money and the sky won't fall", it's literally the oldest trick in the book renewed in secular and scientific language for the modern age.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Race-baiting fake news outlet Buzzfeed trolled by anti-Trump fan fiction.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/10/buzzfeed-publishes-donald-trump-russia-documents-ethics-questions

Too funny.

 

[metarvo 712]

Lol, a non-fund-raiser truly is breaking news in politics, given that we've had so many in that field over the years.    The President-Elect is making a news conference live now.  Interesting stuff. 

By the way, to those media outlets who stirred up this whole "fake news" narrative: you're getting a whole bottle of your own medicine now.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Judge rules woman can't sue Trump over calling her a "dummy" on Twitter

"Manhattan state Supreme Court Judge Barbara Jaffe ruled that though Mr. Trump’s tweets about public relations strategist and Republican consultant Cheryl Jacobus were “rife with vague and simplistic insults,” they were expressions of opinion protected by the First Amendment."

[metarvo 712]

The news media fireworks are going now at the podium.  I just heard Trump have to say, "You are fake news" to some reporter who was trying to interrupt.  Classic.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

4 minutes ago, metarvo said:

The news media fireworks are going now at the podium.  I just heard Trump have to say, "You are fake news."  Classic.

Just saw that while eating lunch, almost dropped my chicken tendies when Trump said it.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

6 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Just saw that while eating lunch, almost dropped my chicken tendies when Trump said it.

And a legend is born...

Place your bets on whether Trump is the next Reagan or Roosevelt (FDR) to step up to the US Presidency.

And a youtube clip of the exchange, I saw it and it was glorious...

 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I'll bet they really regret popularizing the term 'fake news' right now.

It’s time to retire the tainted term ‘fake news’

Yup, they do.

But seriously, when media outlets frivolously attack Trump with unsubstantiated claims it only damages their ability to report on actual scandals that may pop up. Sad day for journalism.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Hack news reporter VS journalist with integrity.

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

21 hours ago, Ln X said:

And a legend is born...

Place your bets on whether Trump is the next Reagan or Roosevelt (FDR) to step up to the US Presidency.

And a youtube clip of the exchange, I saw it and it was glorious...

 

Why are you applauding this? 

I mean, seriously? So Trump doesn't like CNN (why exactly they handed him millions worth of airtime for free) and he shows his dislike for a news organization by insulting them? Hell, even as a put down this one is just...lame. Toddler level lame. "No, YOU are a poopy head."  

Is this what we can expect from the new president? One that simply tries to ignore the news outlets that ask difficult questions and writes them off as 'fake news'? And that on his first press conference, when he didn't even had time to seriously muck something up?

So, why is this good, why is this worth applauding? Why is it good that someone with so much power dodges critical and hostile questions in such a blatant manner? 

[krbe 193]

19 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

attack Trump with unsubstantiated claims

Attack Trump with unsubstantiated claims -- or publishing the fact that the President and the President-Elect had been briefed on the existence of such claims by its own agencies? Just because something reflects badly on you, doesn't mean its a direct attack. Check the dates on the report. If those in possession of said information believed it was usable, you would have heard about it long ago.

I'm unsure whether Mr Trump would have been able to behave presidential (in the new meaning of the term) with a team of Russian prostitutes, but rather surprised that he publicly disavows any possibility of anything happening.

On a side note, I agree with Mr Trump that Buzzfeed is a failing pile of garbage. I have much the same view on that organisation as I do on the President-Elect.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 2017-01-12 at 4:17 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Why are you applauding this? 

I mean, seriously? So Trump doesn't like CNN (why exactly they handed him millions worth of airtime for free) and he shows his dislike for a news organization by insulting them? Hell, even as a put down this one is just...lame. Toddler level lame. "No, YOU are a poopy head."  

Is this what we can expect from the new president? One that simply tries to ignore the news outlets that ask difficult questions and writes them off as 'fake news'? And that on his first press conference, when he didn't even had time to seriously muck something up?

So, why is this good, why is this worth applauding? Why is it good that someone with so much power dodges critical and hostile questions in such a blatant manner? 

What's great about the how he put down that "reporter" down is how he used the label of Fake News against the mainstream media, thus totally destroying the term.

CNN is a garbage news organization that blatantly worked to get Hillary elected. In terms of this news conference, CNN were the ones who tried to give legitimacy to a fake leaked dossier so they got what they deserved.

Trump earned every single minute of air time during the election. Besides, they only gave it to him with the intent of destroying him, but that backfired spectacularly. He owes them nothing.

Rules of a press conference are that the speaker gets to call on whoever he wants, he doesn't have to acquiesce to the loudest voice in the room.

It's worth applauding 'cause we like to have a little fun at the expense of terrible news organizations who've wasted their credibility by sucking up to Obama and Hillary.

He ignored one question, big whoop. Lighten up. The real Fake News just got its ass handed to it, rejoice!

[_Michael 2,681]

@MilitantRadical

But Trump's behaviour during that part of that news conference was unacceptable, and critising a news organisation in that way I said not acceptable from the next president. 

And on the topic of CNN, I find it disgraceful how any news network can be so politically biased in the US. The channels in the U.K. aren't immune, but certainly are not infected with this political bias to anywhere near the same extent as those in the US. 

News networks should be conveying the raw infomation and facts; taking sides in an election and backing a candidate and providing any candidate with free air time (Trump earned none of it) is not morally right, nor is it good journalistic practice.

This isn't just an issue with CNN, I'll make that clear now. It's something that affects all news channels I can think of in the US.

 

And on a final note, I'm enjoying my last 22 hours in a morally just world.  

[Abrams 1,744]

3 minutes ago, _Michael said:

@MilitantRadical

But Trump's behaviour during that part of that news conference was unacceptable, and critising a news organisation in that way I said not acceptable from the next president. 

And on the topic of CNN, I find it disgraceful how any news network can be so politically biased in the US. The channels in the U.K. aren't immune, but certainly are not infected with this political bias to anywhere near the same extent as those in the US. 

News networks should be conveying the raw infomation and facts; taking sides in an election and backing a candidate and providing any candidate with free air time (Trump earned none of it) is not morally right, nor is it good journalistic practice.

This isn't just an issue with CNN, I'll make that clear now. It's something that affects all news channels I can think of in the US.

 

And on a final note, I'm enjoying my last 22 hours in a morally just world.  

Yeah,i was thinking about that,the final hours before Trump gets put in one of the most powerfull seats in the world,but on a certain note i like that he's trying to strengthen relations with Russia.Or maybe that's not even true and is just a lie?Who knows.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

28 minutes ago, _Michael said:

But Trump's behaviour during that part of that news conference was unacceptable, and critising a news organisation in that way I said not acceptable from the next president.

Why isn't it acceptable? Are news organizations immune from criticism by The President? Especially if the peddle false information?

30 minutes ago, _Michael said:

News networks should be conveying the raw infomation and facts; taking sides in an election and backing a candidate and providing any candidate with free air time (Trump earned none of it) is not morally right, nor is it good journalistic practice.

Define "free air time". What is "free air time" as opposed to "air-time"? How did they give Trump "free air time"? Are you suggesting media should intentionally limit their coverage of candidates in order to prevent their messages from propagating?

How did Trump not earn the air time he received? He made controversial statements, he's entertaining to watch and gave great speeches, he came up with the best catch phrases and slogans, and he knew how to get the media's attention.

Trump was the political equivalent of a high-wire act that you just couldn't keep your eyes off because you thought, or were hoping, he'd fall, but he never did. That is how he earned the media he received.

I said at the beginning of the election that Trump is a brilliant businessman once you realize the product he's selling is himself.

26 minutes ago, _Michael said:

And on a final note, I'm enjoying my last 22 hours in a morally just world.  

That's a joke right?

[_Michael 2,681]

3 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Why isn't it acceptable? Are news organizations immune from criticism by The President? Especially if the peddle false information?

They shouldn't be immune, but nor should a person in such a position of responsibility act and behave and shout and point and make brash comments in the way Trump did. 

5 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Are you suggesting media should intentionally limit their coverage of candidates in order to prevent their messages from propagating?

They should have never given so much air time as they did to a man with horrifically antiquated attitudes. 

6 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

He made controversial statements

Rephrase that to downright derogatory and discriminative. 

8 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

That is how he earned the media he received.

He perhaps 'earned' it but should never have been granted it. 

8 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

That's a joke right?

Does it sound like a joke? There is not a hint of sarcasm nor humour in that statement. 

[nos.17 5,265]

3 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

What's great about the how he put down that "reporter" down is how he used the label of Fake News against the mainstream media, thus totally destroying the term.

So, you're right about that, but not in the way you think. The problem with the term "Fake News" is that it is vastly overapplied. If you don't like what a news organization has to say, or if they release something without verification, the term is hastily shoved upon them. CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc are NOT fake news organizations. These are actual fake news organizations. There is a crucial difference between fake news and journalistic errors. Sure, those errors shouldn't have been made and should have been caught before publishing, but making an error does not qualify an organization as fake. Show me a news organization that has never had to rescind or retract an article and I will Paypal you $20.

It is a HUGE disservice to label these kinds of things as "Fake News" because it totally diminishes the spotlight on legitimately fake news. The new label of "fake news" combines anything not (or only partially true) with sensationalism as well as objectivity/bias issues, thus making it magnitudes more difficult to determine if something is actually fake. E.g. are you calling it fake news because you just don't like what they have to say? Is the author left-leaning and publishes something critical (but true) of Trump discredited not due to the content but because of who he is? Are those stories actually fake Etc. It makes it much more difficult to tell.

Did the organization intend to publish something false, or were they publishing the best piece they could with whatever (limited) information they had. That should be the only differentiator in fake news.

So in using the term "Fake News," I am arguing that Trump destroyed not the credibility CNN, but the credibility of the term itself.

[rivit 3,404]

1 hour ago, nos.17 said:

Did the organization intend to publish something false, or were they publishing the best piece they could with whatever (limited) information they had. That should be the only differentiator in fake news.

I suspect a little more is needed - does a 500 word news article containing 20 words of real fact qualify? The fact density of "news" is already woefully low. 

There was once (not all that long ago) an ethical distinction between news (fact) , opinion and subjunctive replay* (imagination) and selling (politics and commerce). The rush away from tangible media and the need to be first and sell a virtual identity in a world where everyman's slice of the pie is vanishingly small has completely scrambled the media landscape. How do we know what to believe if all the markers have been buried?  

I hope you're right that Fake News as a term has been discredited but I doubt that it as a thing will disappear. The stripy paste won't go back in the tube.

 

 * Douglas Hofstadter - Godel, Escher, Bach 1985

[APSMS 1,893]

4 hours ago, _Michael said:

And on a final note, I'm enjoying my last 22 hours in a morally just world.  

I know you didn't mean it that way but personally I found it very funny.

The world was not a morally just place when Obama and Cameron were in office. It will not, therefore, cease to be so when Trump assumes his office.

Before you brig up all the "racism"  in Trumps rhetoric (Muslims aren't a race by the way), may I ask what happened to Osama bin Laden's trial? Who made the President judge, jury, and executioner? He's the commander in chief of the armed forces during time of war (although in fairness when has America not been at war in the last 70 years? ), not Judge Dredd. Executing bin Laden made him a martyr for his cause instead of exposing his evil for everyone to see. 

We cannot go around calling other world leaders war criminals because we happen to disagree with their aims, or else by the same metric virtually every president since FDR could be given that label by opposing nations (and let's not forget that both Russia and China are permanent members of the UN security council).

Also whose moral standard are we measuring, because I was of the understanding that neither the Christian or Islamic standards met the modern humanitarian measure, so who's rules are we supposing to judge the world by? 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

6 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

What's great about the how he put down that "reporter" down is how he used the label of Fake News against the mainstream media, thus totally destroying the term.

CNN is a garbage news organization that blatantly worked to get Hillary elected. In terms of this news conference, CNN were the ones who tried to give legitimacy to a fake leaked dossier so they got what they deserved.

Trump earned every single minute of air time during the election. Besides, they only gave it to him with the intent of destroying him, but that backfired spectacularly. He owes them nothing.

Rules of a press conference are that the speaker gets to call on whoever he wants, he doesn't have to acquiesce to the loudest voice in the room.

It's worth applauding 'cause we like to have a little fun at the expense of terrible news organizations who've wasted their credibility by sucking up to Obama and Hillary.

He ignored one question, big whoop. Lighten up. The real Fake News just got its ass handed to it, rejoice!

CNN are just revelling in mud-slinging and race-baiting. The "whitelash" comment from Van Jones was not only a misleading simplification but it was designed to pit blacks and hispanics against whites. Mr Jones forget to mention how nearly 10% of blacks voted for Trump and 29% of Hispanics voted for Trump. Trump did better with these two groups than Mitt Romney. Just think about that for a moment given all the MSM hysteria and propaganda.

So the Donald shutting down CNN is a bit of poetic justice because Trump has fought and fought for the presidency, he has had his feet to the fire at least a year and I think that builds character in a person.

 

3 hours ago, _Michael said:

@MilitantRadical

But Trump's behaviour during that part of that news conference was unacceptable, and critising a news organisation in that way I said not acceptable from the next president. 

And on the topic of CNN, I find it disgraceful how any news network can be so politically biased in the US. The channels in the U.K. aren't immune, but certainly are not infected with this political bias to anywhere near the same extent as those in the US. 

News networks should be conveying the raw infomation and facts; taking sides in an election and backing a candidate and providing any candidate with free air time (Trump earned none of it) is not morally right, nor is it good journalistic practice.

This isn't just an issue with CNN, I'll make that clear now. It's something that affects all news channels I can think of in the US.

 

And on a final note, I'm enjoying my last 22 hours in a morally just world.  

Sadly too many people believe in this hyperbole. Obama is not the saint or saviour of America, in fact at best he was a very average president.

You can't attribute the economic recovery to the Obama administration because the three main pillars of the economic recovery: Federal Reserve quantitative easing, the fracking boom and student loans were already happening before Obama even became president. The Federal Reserve's QE shored up the financial sector, the fracking boom brought millions of jobs and the students loans became the primary conduit for money creation in the country.

The issue of a low labour force participation rate was endemic during the Obama administration and just got worse and worse. It is hovering around in the 62.5% territory and the 66% rate before the crisis has not recovered. 45 million people are on food stamps and that number is finally starting to go down a little bit. Low interest rates have devastated saving and created a bizarro environment where everyone must invest to protect against inflation. Real incomes have continued to stagnate and the country is one financial crisis away from entering another depression, one which will drain pension pots and cause government debt to mushroom by multiples of 2 or 3 within a few years.

Oh yes, the Obama administration consolidated To Big To Fail (TBTF) and has now doubled down with bills passed that will extend the scope of future bailouts to include ALL derivatives markets. The liabilities could potentially run into the tens of trillions of dollars. TBTF is plutocracy, it's oligarchy. It's saying that banks are more important than the law, the government, the people... A big part of the constitutional republic that is America died when TBTF became a thing in 2008.

Also the government debt has doubled during the Obama administration. This is a catastrophe for the wealthfare state because those liabilities are mounting and mounting and mounting. The reliance on student loans, government debt and central bank intervention is worrying because it causing greater amounts of wealth to be locked up in investment in bonds, debt, stocks, derivatives and other financial instruments. Investment in the economy in general is slowly shrinking and investment in financial instruments is only worth it for the spot value- when you actually sell the stuff.

Financially and economically, the Obama Administration along with the Federal Reserve have borrowed the future to save the present. Interest rates are only now starting to rise and this is going to crush tens of millions of Americans has their mortgage rates rise.

Internationally the Obama Administration has failed miserably. It has doubled down on the War on Terror, help fund rebels and militants who are destroying Libya and Syria and ultimately created the European Refugee Crisis. It has started a second Cold War with Russia as now both Russia and the USA are engaged in a nuclear arms race, missile shield technology has now been used in Eastern Europe. While the whole point of American diplomacy is to ensure American influence is across the world in both politics, trade and currency. However that has crumbled due to limp-wristed leadership: now blocks of nations in South America, Africa, East, Central Asia and the Middle East are creating their own trade blocs, currency blocks, their own rudimentary defence pacts and their own diplomatic circles. The fact is the world does not revolve around America anymore and there are new superblocks emerging, part of this was inevitable after the Financial Crisis and the completely botched War on Terror. I personally think Bush's "Mission Accomplished" was peak Americana, peak Pax Americana. Not that I'm complaining about waning American influence, it had to happen for the sake of a fairer world.

What about domestically? Has the first black president and the most racially diverse Presidential Administration in history helped to sooth racial tensions and bring about more harmony? Very mixed. Woefully lax border controls has caused a surge in immigration from Mexico. Of course the saddest thing and the biggest missed opportunity ever is how Barack Obama could have presented an actual vision for black Americans and provided practical solutions to the poverty and high crime rates. Black poverty has been by and large ignored due to poor economic policies; black-on-black violence has been totally overlooked and instead the focus is on the rather tiny police-on-black violence. People lose their s- when a black American is shot by a police officer, but 30 or so blacks dying in a day by the hands of other blacks across the inner cities? That's just a statistic. So sad.

The issue with gangster culture, high black murder rates by other blacks, rampant abortion, single-parent families and failing schools have not been given the full attention they deserve.

Indeed Obama's passive aggressive approach to the police and his blindness to horrific levels of black-on-black violence has in part laid fertile grounds for extremist groups like Black Lives Matter to arise and sow dissent, confusion and misery. The fact that Chicago, Obama's city, has the strictest gun control laws and yet one of the highest rates of black-on-black violence and gun violence speaks volumes about the failure of the Obama administration. The fact is race relations have not been this bad since when... The 1980s? The 1970s? There is this sad push, from what I see in the news, towards a second civil rights movement but it is not looking inwards and looking at the issues of rampant black-on-black violence, dysfunctional families, single-parent homes which are often mothers, poor schools in the inner-cities.... The list goes on and on, instead its blaming someone else: the police, the government, banks, white people (according to black supremacists).

It's interesting how the Democratic Party has done the same thing after the election: blame the media, blame Wikileaks, blame the FBI, even blame Russia when really all they had to do is point at themselves for they, the Democratic Party, shots themselves in the foot when the DNC was rigged against Bernie Sanders.

Obama had no vision, he just had rhetoric because he was so politically inexperienced. So many young people and celebrities like him because he's "cool" and drops the mike from time-to-time. But his administration was full of yesmen which is why he acted so stunned after Trump's victory, Obama has been in a world of his own for the last eight years. He's like one of those incompetent, negligent Roman Emperors who let's the Empire crumble as jackals in the system exploit the empire for base gain.

But he was right about the change part of his "Hope and Change" shtick, America has changed: it's become more uncertain of itself, it's become a pariah on the international stage, it's become more polarized. Some people would argue that Obama wanted to see America burn, given the negligence and lack of vision they may, may, have a point.

So many people think that Obama leaving office marks the start of some kind of dark period. I don't think so, I think it's the complete opposite- this is a breathe of fresh air. Trump feels like leadership material, he has fought to get to the top and will have to keep on fighting. People get so upset about Trump's words, when really what actually matters is actions. Words are just a cloak.

I have also heard rumours, from some of the colleagues I work with in my teacher training course, that Trump could be assassinated on the inauguration day. I pray to God that does not happen because if it did... First of all it would unprecedented and secondly it would smack of a coup... So people wishing for Trump's imminent demise, be careful what you wish for.

So I'm praying for a smooth transition and for any protests to stay peaceful. Only fools would wish for an assassination or a massive civil disturbance (violent).

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

19 hours ago, _Michael said:

They should have never given so much air time as they did to a man with horrifically antiquated attitudes.

You do realize that the vast majority of Trump coverage on a channel like CNN was negative, right?

19 hours ago, _Michael said:

He perhaps 'earned' it but should never have been granted it.

Are you advocating for censorship? Should the media have censored Trump by covering him less? Should they have ignored the most popular candidate in the Republican field?

19 hours ago, _Michael said:

Does it sound like a joke? There is not a hint of sarcasm nor humour in that statement. 

When did the world become morally just? Are you aware of Obama's foreign policy record?

19 hours ago, nos.17 said:

CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc are NOT fake news organizations.

Have they been purveyors of partisan or corporate propaganda? Yes.

Have they reported fake, not wrong, news on multiple occasions? Yes.

Are they real news organizations? Yes, a real news organization can publish fake news.

19 hours ago, nos.17 said:

It is a HUGE disservice to label these kinds of things as "Fake News" because it totally diminishes the spotlight on legitimately fake news. The new label of "fake news" combines anything not (or only partially true) with sensationalism as well as objectivity/bias issues, thus making it magnitudes more difficult to determine if something is actually fake. E.g. are you calling it fake news because you just don't like what they have to say? Is the author left-leaning and publishes something critical (but true) of Trump discredited not due to the content but because of who he is? Are those stories actually fake Etc. It makes it much more difficult to tell.

The dossier released by Buzzfeed and how CNN initially gave it credibility when both organizations knew the info could not be vetted absolutely qualifies as "Fake News".

Those two organizations also reported that Trump was briefed on the dossier but NBC contradicts them and said he never was. They used the allegation that Trump was briefed as a way to give the document credibility then had anti-Trump agents like ex-CIA Agent Evan McMullen say this is proof of legitimacy when it wasn't.

19 hours ago, nos.17 said:

These are actual fake news organizations.

This seems very partisan. None, or few, of the sites included in the "clickbait websites", lean left. They're mostly right wing alternative news sources. Infowars isn't fake news, it's a highly partisan operation with conspiratorial leanings, but I wouldn't call it "fake".

Infowars had bar-none the best on-the-street reportage of the entire 2016 election. While news outlets like CNN were up in their ivory tower with their heads up you know where, Infowars was talking to actual people and engaging with them to find out why they wanted to vote Trump, or not.

20 hours ago, nos.17 said:

It is a HUGE disservice to label these kinds of things as "Fake News" because it totally diminishes the spotlight on legitimately fake news.

Can you point me to a story that you consider to be "legitimately fake news"? lol, now we're talking about the legitimacy of fakeness

19 hours ago, nos.17 said:

Did the organization intend to publish something false, or were they publishing the best piece they could with whatever (limited) information they had. That should be the only differentiator in fake news.

Finding out someone's intent is almost impossible unless you can read minds.

Did news organizations like CNN or FOX intend to publish something false when they repeated the narrative that there were WMDs in Iraq? Who knows, but by uncritically propagating that claim they were spreading "fake news".

Did Rolling Stone knowingly publish something false when they released the UVA rape story? 

19 hours ago, nos.17 said:

So in using the term "Fake News," I am arguing that Trump destroyed not the credibility CNN, but the credibility of the term itself.

That was my point wasn't it?

 

[metarvo 712]

21 hours ago, nos.17 said:

So in using the term "Fake News," I am arguing that Trump destroyed not the credibility CNN, but the credibility of the term itself.

It sounds like a victory either way if you ask me.  If it is merely the credibility of the term that has been destroyed, then maybe the term will stop being used.  It only started being thrown around in a last-ditch propaganda effort IMHO.

[_Michael 2,681]

Watching the speech it plucks dangerous populist strings and brings a dangerous and worrying insular attitude into the office.

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

I think this kind of speech is natural since the Western world is too polarized at this moment.