(02-17-2017 08:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]no evidence
Lock him up! Lock him up!
Yes who ever leaked this should be locked up
(02-17-2017 06:31 PM)JOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2017 04:54 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]My point is that the issue is wasted energy.
How he feels about the election is not as important as whether specific administration actions / policies are good, bad or incompetent, or the Administrations explanation for them.
I get that he brings it up. At some point, I'd treat it as a simple statement and move on. It's what we do with people we care about, at any rate. I don't correct people who I know over inconsequential matters.
Make the point once, when he repeats how he feels again, don't give it air play. Move on to important stuff.
You're taking issue with the response, but the original question here was: why does Trump keep bringing this up? Why does he keep making the same false statement?
not sure:
1. He's incompetent, and cannot see how this hurts him.
2. He's stubborn and enjoys fighting.
3. He ornery and knows it upsets people and that energizes him.
4. He knows that every minute spent wasted on a meaningless issue is less time devoted to more important topics (i.e. a perpetual smoke screen.
I'm inclined to think it's a varying combination of 2, 3 and 4.
Actually being right or wrong is not much of an issue to him. It's winning battles.
More than 30 years ago, my first boss asked me the question/statement: "Being right seems to be very important to you."
It was not meant (or ultimately taken) as a compliment.
While there are certainly issues that need to be addressed and bird-dogged . . . every time this specific issue gets addressed, I feel like Trump is just playing a game with these guys, and I think he enjoys getting them worked up about this issue.
I still like to be right. But there is a time and a place for it. And quite often there is a cost that comes with it.
I think this facebook post from Dan Rather is worth reposting in its entirety. During the Republican primary I mentioned a few times how a grad school friend's work was repeatedly getting quoted because it was turning out "authoritarianism" was the best predictor of Trump support. Trump continues to play by that playbook and it's increasingly worrisome. (Until fairly recently authoritarian voters have been spread across both parties - not enough in either party for someone to get the nomination. They have been shifting almost entirely to the republicans of late.)
"I have resisted commenting on President Trump's outrageous attack on the press with his tweet calling the media "the enemy of the American people." It is a sentiment that is a deep betrayal of our national history. The evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that to choose any one example is to play into the alternate reality Mr. Trump is seeking to exploit for his cynical political purposes.
My message is not for he who will not listen. Instead I wish to address his enablers, specifically those in the Republican Party who by their silence on this travesty normalize a behaviour that is antithetical to our Constitutional principles. Future generations will not look kindly on profiles in cowardice.
And to my fellow journalists, I know you will not be bullied or intimidated. Keep doing your job. Your country depends on your service. Courage."
Edit: Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist about my use of authoritarianism, in this case it's used in a specific well-established social science definition with an agreed upon measure. I'll try and dig up a link later.
(02-18-2017 10:02 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think this facebook post from Dan Rather is worth reposting in its entirety. During the Republican primary I mentioned a few times how a grad school friend's work was repeatedly getting quoted because it was turning out "authoritarianism" was the best predictor of Trump support. Trump continues to play by that playbook and it's increasingly worrisome. (Until fairly recently authoritarian voters have been spread across both parties - not enough in either party for someone to get the nomination. They have been shifting almost entirely to the republicans of late.)
"I have resisted commenting on President Trump's outrageous attack on the press with his tweet calling the media "the enemy of the American people." It is a sentiment that is a deep betrayal of our national history. The evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that to choose any one example is to play into the alternate reality Mr. Trump is seeking to exploit for his cynical political purposes.
My message is not for he who will not listen. Instead I wish to address his enablers, specifically those in the Republican Party who by their silence on this travesty normalize a behaviour that is antithetical to our Constitutional principles. Future generations will not look kindly on profiles in cowardice.
And to my fellow journalists, I know you will not be bullied or intimidated. Keep doing your job. Your country depends on your service. Courage."
Edit: Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist about my use of authoritarianism, in this case it's used in a specific well-established social science definition with an agreed upon measure. I'll try and dig up a link later.
The irony of Dan Rather making this comment is rich, especially since he is pretty much the March of Dimes poster child for why some feel that the press is in the sh-tter objectively these days.
He is a major lightning rod for Trump's comments -- this is like the bacteria commenting (actually complaining) on the broad spectrum antibiotic that damages the body but which is used for the symptoms of the bacteria.
Yep, Mr. "The underlying reported facts are falsified, but the story is true" is not a great spokesman for this.
(02-18-2017 10:02 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think this facebook post from Dan Rather is worth reposting in its entirety. During the Republican primary I mentioned a few times how a grad school friend's work was repeatedly getting quoted because it was turning out "authoritarianism" was the best predictor of Trump support. Trump continues to play by that playbook and it's increasingly worrisome. (Until fairly recently authoritarian voters have been spread across both parties - not enough in either party for someone to get the nomination. They have been shifting almost entirely to the republicans of late.)
"I have resisted commenting on President Trump's outrageous attack on the press with his tweet calling the media "the enemy of the American people." It is a sentiment that is a deep betrayal of our national history. The evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that to choose any one example is to play into the alternate reality Mr. Trump is seeking to exploit for his cynical political purposes.
My message is not for he who will not listen. Instead I wish to address his enablers, specifically those in the Republican Party who by their silence on this travesty normalize a behaviour that is antithetical to our Constitutional principles. Future generations will not look kindly on profiles in cowardice.
And to my fellow journalists, I know you will not be bullied or intimidated. Keep doing your job. Your country depends on your service. Courage."
Edit: Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist about my use of authoritarianism, in this case it's used in a specific well-established social science definition with an agreed upon measure. I'll try and dig up a link later.
This is the same Dan Rather who got canned for peddling fake "letters" regarding GWB's national guard service, right?
And in my opinion, "well-established social science definition" is a synonym for "unadulterated BS."
(02-18-2017 10:02 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think this facebook post from Dan Rather is worth reposting in its entirety. During the Republican primary I mentioned a few times how a grad school friend's work was repeatedly getting quoted because it was turning out "authoritarianism" was the best predictor of Trump support. Trump continues to play by that playbook and it's increasingly worrisome. (Until fairly recently authoritarian voters have been spread across both parties - not enough in either party for someone to get the nomination. They have been shifting almost entirely to the republicans of late.)
"I have resisted commenting on President Trump's outrageous attack on the press with his tweet calling the media "the enemy of the American people." It is a sentiment that is a deep betrayal of our national history. The evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that to choose any one example is to play into the alternate reality Mr. Trump is seeking to exploit for his cynical political purposes.
My message is not for he who will not listen. Instead I wish to address his enablers, specifically those in the Republican Party who by their silence on this travesty normalize a behaviour that is antithetical to our Constitutional principles. Future generations will not look kindly on profiles in cowardice.
And to my fellow journalists, I know you will not be bullied or intimidated. Keep doing your job. Your country depends on your service. Courage."
Edit: Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist about my use of authoritarianism, in this case it's used in a specific well-established social science definition with an agreed upon measure. I'll try and dig up a link later.
Don't wear knickers. TMI?
I think the public has been been losing trust in the press over your last six decades, and Trump is just the guy to tap into that. My father had a bumper sticker on his car showing the network logo and the words "Rather biased". The scandal that led to his forced retirement should be kept in mind. A mighty poor guru for you to follow as the leader of a free and unbiased press.
I used to pooh pooh at my Dad's suggestion that the press was biased. Of course, that was back in my Jimmy Carter daze. Of course the press has no axe to grind - all they care about is the truth. Well, that used to be my opinion. A few more decades of watching, analyzing, and thinking has led me to believe the old guy was on to something.
I don't buy into what Trump says about the media. I came independently to that same conclusion years ago, back when he was just a real estate developer with hair plugs, and so when the NYT tells me something, I take it with a grain of salt rather than swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. same for all of them. I am skeptical of everybody, not just the left, not just the right, everybody.
(02-18-2017 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2017 10:02 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think this facebook post from Dan Rather is worth reposting in its entirety. During the Republican primary I mentioned a few times how a grad school friend's work was repeatedly getting quoted because it was turning out "authoritarianism" was the best predictor of Trump support. Trump continues to play by that playbook and it's increasingly worrisome. (Until fairly recently authoritarian voters have been spread across both parties - not enough in either party for someone to get the nomination. They have been shifting almost entirely to the republicans of late.)
"I have resisted commenting on President Trump's outrageous attack on the press with his tweet calling the media "the enemy of the American people." It is a sentiment that is a deep betrayal of our national history. The evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that to choose any one example is to play into the alternate reality Mr. Trump is seeking to exploit for his cynical political purposes.
My message is not for he who will not listen. Instead I wish to address his enablers, specifically those in the Republican Party who by their silence on this travesty normalize a behaviour that is antithetical to our Constitutional principles. Future generations will not look kindly on profiles in cowardice.
And to my fellow journalists, I know you will not be bullied or intimidated. Keep doing your job. Your country depends on your service. Courage."
Edit: Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist about my use of authoritarianism, in this case it's used in a specific well-established social science definition with an agreed upon measure. I'll try and dig up a link later.
This is the same Dan Rather who got canned for peddling fake "letters" regarding GWB's national guard service, right?
And in my opinion, "well-established social science definition" is a synonym for "unadulterated BS."
Well, if you think the President of the United States calling just about every media outlet other than Breitbart and Fox News "enemies of the American people" is fine and dandy in a democracy, authoritarianism might not bother you that much.
For people who aren't so ready to dismiss work on which people have spent their entire careers as "unadulterated BS" without even reading it, here's an excellent summary for last year:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/tru...itarianism
(02-18-2017 10:33 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]For people who aren't so ready to dismiss work on which people have spent their entire careers as "unadulterated BS"
That would not include me.
(02-18-2017 10:33 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Well, if you think the President of the United States calling just about every media outlet other than Breitbart and Fox News "enemies of the American people" is fine and dandy in a democracy, authoritarianism might not bother you that much.
What I actually think is that the vast majority of the US media are in fact engaged in imposing their own brand of authoritarianism on the American public. Not a conspiracy, but groupthink, so not a conspiracy theory.
I think it is incredibly important that some degree of independent intellectual diversity be maintained. Therefore, while I don't agree with Trump, I think it is refreshing to have somebody calling them out.
I think that blind adherence to some "establishment" viewpoint, and the MSM is one place where I see that on display all too often, is the worst form of authoritarianism.
It all just became clear. The left is defined by it's blind unwavering trust in the MSM.
So, when one media outlet says Trump is "unhinged", it is gospel, and when another says it saw no evidence of that, it is biased. I think I understand now.
(02-18-2017 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2017 10:33 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]For people who aren't so ready to dismiss work on which people have spent their entire careers as "unadulterated BS"
That would not include me.
Well, that's what you did in the previous post.
Having said that, my response was a good example of why I usually wait a a while before responding to stuff instead of typing the first thing that pops out of my head. Sorry about that.
(02-18-2017 10:33 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]For people who aren't so ready to dismiss work on which people have spent their entire careers as "unadulterated BS"
Would that include the work of people who have spent their entire career at Breitbart or Fox?
(02-18-2017 10:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2017 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2017 10:33 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]For people who aren't so ready to dismiss work on which people have spent their entire careers as "unadulterated BS"
That would not include me.
Well, that's what you did in the previous post.
Having said that, my response was a good example of why I usually wait a a while before responding to stuff instead of typing the first thing that pops out of my head. Sorry about that.
No offense taken, and I hope none given.
I take a very dim view of the "social engineering" sciences, which I think are the causes of a lot of our current difficulties. I have said on many occasions that I think the world would be a better place if possession of a degree in sociology were capital offense. Not directed personally at the people (and I would pardon anyone who disavowed) but rather at the discipline itself.
Likewise, I hope no offense given here either, I just happen to feel very strongly about this.
ETA: Just reread your post and I may have misinterpreted somewhat. My comment was meant to state that the population of those not ready to dismiss would not include me. To clarify, my previous post did dismiss, and I intended to do so.
(02-18-2017 10:33 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2017 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2017 10:02 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think this facebook post from Dan Rather is worth reposting in its entirety. During the Republican primary I mentioned a few times how a grad school friend's work was repeatedly getting quoted because it was turning out "authoritarianism" was the best predictor of Trump support. Trump continues to play by that playbook and it's increasingly worrisome. (Until fairly recently authoritarian voters have been spread across both parties - not enough in either party for someone to get the nomination. They have been shifting almost entirely to the republicans of late.)
"I have resisted commenting on President Trump's outrageous attack on the press with his tweet calling the media "the enemy of the American people." It is a sentiment that is a deep betrayal of our national history. The evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that to choose any one example is to play into the alternate reality Mr. Trump is seeking to exploit for his cynical political purposes.
My message is not for he who will not listen. Instead I wish to address his enablers, specifically those in the Republican Party who by their silence on this travesty normalize a behaviour that is antithetical to our Constitutional principles. Future generations will not look kindly on profiles in cowardice.
And to my fellow journalists, I know you will not be bullied or intimidated. Keep doing your job. Your country depends on your service. Courage."
Edit: Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist about my use of authoritarianism, in this case it's used in a specific well-established social science definition with an agreed upon measure. I'll try and dig up a link later.
This is the same Dan Rather who got canned for peddling fake "letters" regarding GWB's national guard service, right?
And in my opinion, "well-established social science definition" is a synonym for "unadulterated BS."
Well, if you think the President of the United States calling just about every media outlet other than Breitbart and Fox News "enemies of the American people" is fine and dandy in a democracy, authoritarianism might not bother you that much.
For people who aren't so ready to dismiss work on which people have spent their entire careers as "unadulterated BS" without even reading it, here's an excellent summary for last year:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/tru...itarianism
yep -- that unbiased Vox cite shinging through. Dude, you know how you would cringe and cry with a Breitbart cite, right?
Anyone else think there is a connection between those who argue against climate change science and those who argue against the truthfulness of the majority of reporting, and vice versa? Seems to me that, at least on this board, they go hand in hand, and I wonder why.
(02-18-2017 10:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2017 10:33 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Well, if you think the President of the United States calling just about every media outlet other than Breitbart and Fox News "enemies of the American people" is fine and dandy in a democracy, authoritarianism might not bother you that much.
What I actually think is that the vast majority of the US media are in fact engaged in imposing their own brand of authoritarianism on the American public. Not a conspiracy, but groupthink, so not a conspiracy theory.
I think it is incredibly important that some degree of independent intellectual diversity be maintained. Therefore, while I don't agree with Trump, I think it is refreshing to have somebody calling them out.
I think that blind adherence to some "establishment" viewpoint, and the MSM is one place where I see that on display all too often, is the worst form of authoritarianism.
I think some (on each side) of the media do engage in conspiracies. It has been borne out in the existence of the JournoList episode, where groups of media people "collaborated" in how best to frame the issues best to the liberal cause.
Im sure it exists in another form now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList
Wouldnt be surprised if the 10 or so conservative people that acually exist in MSM (or margin media like Vox or Breitbart) have the same communication setup.
Btw AustinOwl, it is things like Rather and JournoList that have gotten the ire of non-liberals for the liberal bias slammed down the throats of the public. And Trump uses thinkgs like this to his advantage. But it is the liberal media that gave him the ammunition to do so, for better or for worse.
(02-18-2017 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone else think there is a connection between those who argue against climate change science and those who argue against the truthfulness of the majority of reporting, and vice versa? Seems to me that, at least on this board, they go hand in hand, and I wonder why.
Well, do you mean "argue against climate change
science" or argue against the impact or levels of anthropogenic causes of climate change that many suggest?
Big difference. Very big difference.
Your first iteration suggests that the science is an unwavering wall of thought, which it its not. That is the fundamental nature of science.