The biased Media vs Trump!

Mr Joe

alastair wrote: »

You do get that he got fewer votes than his opponent?

You going to keep repeating this for 4 years then? You lost, you were proven wrong. It's time to accept it and move on. That is the democratic process, which you only complain about after the fact. You probably want a re run of Brexit too until it goes your way? I'm afraid that isn't how it works, these are democracies not communist dictatorships as much as you would love that. Crying about it endlessly is pointless and won't change it.

alastair

Mr Joe wrote: »

You going to keep repeating this for 4 years then? You lost, you were proven wrong. It's time to accept it and move on. That is the democratic process, which you only complain about after the fact. You probably want a re run of Brexit too until it goes your way? I'm afraid that isn't how it works, these are democracies not communist dictatorships as much as you would love that. Crying about it endlessly is pointless and won't change it.

Congrats on missing the point completely. Clearly Trump won the election. Well spotted. But he didn't convince a majority of voters that his platform was the way to go - which was the claim being made.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

How, precisely, do you believe Trump has demonstrated strength to Putin? The man hasn't had the backbone to stick to any single policy line in his campaigning, and his position regarding Putin seems to consist primarily of kowtowing. I'm curious as to what manner of delusion reads any of that as 'strength'?

I don't see any Nobel nominations in Trump's future.

A couple of quotes from Trump. The fact that Putin is willing to explore common interests with Moscow shows he looks at Trump as someone who will deal from the position of strength, IMO.

“The Russians and Chinese have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look what’s happened to us!”

“What has happened to us,” said Trump, is that “our nuclear weapons arsenal – our ultimate deterrent, has been allowed to atrophy,” along with sharp reductions in the size of our active duty armed forces, Navy, and Air Force.

“Pilots are flying B-52s in combat missions today which are older than most people in this room,” Trump said to his audience from the Center for the National Interest. “Our military is depleted, and we’re asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming.”

And you're correct in that Trump will never get the Nobel Piece Prize, no matter what. The Nobel Piece Prize has become a worthless and meaningless joke where merit (or lack thereof) is simply determined from the idealistic views of a few leftist individuals.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

A couple of quotes from Trump. The fact that Putin is willing to explore common interests with Moscow shows he looks at Trump as someone who will deal from the position of strength, IMO.

“The Russians and Chinese have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look what’s happened to us!”

“What has happened to us,” said Trump, is that “our nuclear weapons arsenal – our ultimate deterrent, has been allowed to atrophy,” along with sharp reductions in the size of our active duty armed forces, Navy, and Air Force.

“Pilots are flying B-52s in combat missions today which are older than most people in this room,” Trump said to his audience from the Center for the National Interest. “Our military is depleted, and we’re asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming.”

And you're correct in that Trump will never get the Nobel Piece Prize, no matter what. The Nobel Piece Prize has become a worthless and meaningless joke.

And - where's the supposed demonstration of strength in any of that?

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

And - where's the supposed demonstration of strength in any of that?

Those are some themes Trump ran on. At this early stage of the game the top choices that experts think he might pick in key spots are a good indication that he plans on dealing from strength. Such as General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis to serve as his Secretary of Defense, Michael T. Flynn as his National Security Adviser, and Mike Pompeo as CIA Director.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Those are some themes Trump ran on. At this early stage of the game the top choices that experts think he might pick in key spots are a good indication that he plans on dealing from strength. Such as General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis to serve as his Secretary of Defense, Michael T. Flynn as his National Security Adviser, and Mike Pompeo as CIA Director.

None of those themes or appointments highlight any strength whatsoever. Flynn is already compromised on Russia, and seems more concerned with the Clintons and ISIS (and indeed, Muslims in general) than showing strength against Russia - a position at odds with the the Obama Chiefs of Staff, who placed ISIS well down the concerns pecking order from Russia expansionism.

Dyr

How the holy **** is a country whose defence spending is more than double russias and chinas combined depleting its military?

What planet are people living on?

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

None of those themes or appointments highlight any strength whatsoever. Flynn is already compromised on Russia, and seems more concerned with the Clintons and ISIS (and indeed, Muslims in general) than showing strength against Russia - a position at odds with the the Obama Chiefs of Staff, who placed ISIS well down the concerns pecking order from Russia expansionism.

I remember some of the same arguments when Reagan was elected. During the election everyone seemed afraid Trump would be some warmonger… and now he’s weak? Somehow I don’t think you’ll ever consider Trump to be one dealing from strength until he sends Slim Pickens riding some bomb, bronco style, dropped from an aging B-52.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

I remember some of the same arguments when Reagan was elected. During the election everyone seemed afraid Trump would be some warmonger… and now he’s weak? Somehow I don’t think you’ll ever consider Trump to be one dealing from strength until he sends Slim Pickens riding some bomb, bronco style, dropped from an aging B-52.

There's no contradiction between weakness and a capacity to aggravate conflicts. A flip-flopping acolyte of Putin's can still cause untold damage by advocating seizures of other nation's oil, or kicking off military actions on account of some Iranian sailors throwing out some rude hand gestures. He's certainly done a lot to prove he's an ill-considered, thin-skinned narcissist, so how does that play into decisions as commander-in-chief? Reagan had ideological positions that were worrying, but transpired to be much more considered and pragmatic in foreign policy when president - and at least you knew he wasn't going to fly into a pique when presented with a challenge - he had the much-referenced 'temperament' for the job.

Bottom line is that there's been nothing in his pronouncements that demonstrates any sort of projection of strength with regard to Putin. He's by far, used the greatest words of appeasement with regard to the Russian annexation of Crimea.

Overheal

Bambi wrote: »

How the holy **** is a country whose defence spending is more than double russias and chinas combined depleting its military?

What planet are people living on?

Hmm some of that could be disparity between spending and return. The MIC has a lot of bloat. A staggering amount in fact.

Went to Lockheed's facility in Ft Worth this spring to see the F35 production. Personal tour with one of the company's Sr. Fellows. Very high tech, we're talking hundreds of assembly stations, a couple miles of assembly line, mother****ing lasers project onto surfaces to tell technicians where to drill holes and place sheets of carbon fiber. A factory-spanning RFID scanning system (which is absurd to think about) tracks the location of individual tools (so they aren't misplaced..) - and one of the fanciest cafeterias I would have expected to find in a factory setting. Not to mention the front of house is all spackled up with wall-sized TVs running industrial promo videos and you half to walk down 1/4 mile museum hallway just to get to the line.

Just one small glimpse into the Military Industrial Complex to be sure, but when you remember who is funding these folks, you begin to ask yourself where your tax dollar really ends up.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

You do get that he got fewer votes than his opponent?

You don't have to win the popular vote to win the election. That is how the system works over there. It is a fraught process but according to the rules he won it fair and square. The media fully against him and not going into his policies in any detail. We got soundbites of want he wanted and the debates gave us some idea of the candidates polices but once again little scrutiny on who he would appoint when he got elected. One aspect of all this I genuinely find silly how nobody factored into account a Trump victory. It was like they were told yeah Trump is going to lose and the political fallout ensues once in office. Radicals take over when mainstream politicians ignore at their peril the possibility of populists to come to power.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You don't have to win the popular vote to win the election. That is how the system works over there. It is a fraught process but according to the rules he won it fair and square. The media fully against him and not going into his policies in any detail. We got soundbites of want he wanted and the debates gave us some idea of the candidates polices but once again little scrutiny on who he would appoint when he got elected. One aspect of all this I genuinely find silly how nobody factored into account a Trump victory. It was like they were told yeah Trump is going to lose and the political fallout ensues once in office. Radicals take over when mainstream politicians ignore at their peril the possibility of populists to come to power.

At the risk of repeating myself:

Congrats on missing the point completely. Clearly Trump won the election. Well spotted. But he didn't convince a majority of voters that his platform was the way to go - which was the claim being made.

Isn't one of the requirements of being a populist, that you're actually, you know, popular?

There was no scrutiny of who he would appoint, because he never actually said who he would appoint. He still won't - it's all a big suspense building surprise, according to his tweet.

very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions. I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself:



Isn't one of the requirements of being a populist, that you're actually, you know, popular?

There was no scrutiny of who he would appoint, because he never actually said who he would appoint. He still won't - it's all a big suspense building surprise, according to his tweet.

Hillary was not popular as a person, Trump the celebrity, the charismatic Reagan 2016 was extremely popular by comparison Hillary voters only voted for her because they disliked Trump or were traditional Democrats. Hardly popular. Within the Republican party and even among Independents he stole the show. Other than Trump you had Rubio and Bernie and neither of them could breach the barrier within their respective party structures.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Hillary was not popular as a person,

Nope - she was just the more popular candidate. And even with her awful favourability ratings, she fared better than Trump.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump the celebrity, the charismatic Reagan 2016 was extremely popular by comparison

Not so. Reagan, as a candidate in '84 was seen much more favourably. 56% of Republican voters viewed Reagan favourably and 28% unfavourably - a net positive of 28. Meanwhile Trump scored a net negative of -33, with a favorable rating of 24% compared to 57% of Republican voters who viewed him unfavourably. That's pretty far from 'Reagan 2016', more like the anti-Reagan on the charisma front :P

Clinton's figures were slightly better with a net negative of -21, registering a 31% favourable rating and a 52% unfavourable rating. Terrible, but better than Trump managed.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Nope - she was just the more popular candidate. And even with her awful favourability ratings, she fared better than Trump.


Not so. Reagan, as a candidate in '84 was seen much more favourably. 56% of Republican voters viewed Reagan favourably and 28% unfavourably - a net positive of 28. Meanwhile Trump scored a net negative of -33, with a favorable rating of 24% compared to 57% of Republican voters who viewed him unfavourably. That's pretty far from 'Reagan 2016', more like the anti-Reagan on the charisma front :P

Clinton's figures were slightly better with a net negative of -21, registering a 31% favourable rating and a 52% unfavourable rating. Terrible, but better than Trump managed.

Across the Republican primaries and Libertarian voters he consistently received greater support than Hillary. The numbers attending the rallies demonstrate his support dwarfs his rivals in the GOP field and in the Democratic party. The degree of support was also off the charts. Trump supporters stuck with throughout all the election and was built on a personal liking of Trump and GOP's coming to his side such as Giuliani and Chris Christie. By comparison Bernie and Obama voters left the Democrat rank and file when they endorsed Hillary Clinton.

764dak

Trump Summons TV Figures for Private Meeting, and Lets Them Have It
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/business/media/trump-summons-tv-figures-for-private-meeting-and-lets-them-have-it.html?_r=0

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Across the Republican primaries and Libertarian voters he consistently received greater support than Hillary.

The Republican candidate was supported more than the Democrat candidate by Republicans? Shocking!

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The numbers attending the rallies demonstrate his support dwarfs his rivals in the GOP field and in the Democratic party.

And yet that didn't translate into actual votes or favourability ratings. It's as if the rallies don't actually tell us anything about the candidate's actual popularity.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The degree of support was also off the charts.

Actually - it was on the charts, and the figures didn't paint Trump's popularity in any great light.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump supporters stuck with throughout all the election and was built on a personal liking of Trump and GOP's coming to his side such as Giuliani and Chris Christie. By comparison Bernie and Obama voters left the Democrat rank and file when they endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Eh? What is that supposed to mean? The DNC endorsed Hillary, and Hillary's vote came from where, if not primarily the Democrat rank and file?

alastair

764dak wrote: »

Trump Summons TV Figures for Private Meeting, and Lets Them Have It
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/business/media/trump-summons-tv-figures-for-private-meeting-and-lets-them-have-it.html?_r=0

That'll work out well. :rolleyes:

InTheTrees

Mr Joe wrote: »

You going to keep repeating this for 4 years then? You lost, you were proven wrong. It's time to accept it and move on. That is the democratic process, which you only complain about after the fact.

You're missing the point.

Because its possible in the US political system to win the election but lose the peoples vote, that will follow trump for his entire presidency. He has no mandate. Its like a minority gvmt.

Same thing happened with George w bush. He lost the popular vote and he was in dire shape for the first nne months until the 9/11 attacks basically saved him.

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

You're missing the point.

Because its possible in the US political system to win the election but lose the peoples vote, that will follow trump for his entire presidency. He has no mandate. Its like a minority gvmt.

Same thing happened with George w bush. He lost the popular vote and he was in dire shape for the first nne months until the 9/11 attacks basically saved him.

It is within the powers of Congress to change the electoral system if they want to however both the Democrats and the Republicans have benefitted from the system thus far so why would they want to. Third party candidates were enormously popular but they have not a chance in hell so the notion that Trump is unpopular when most of the electorate was veering towards third party candidate suggests they want the system to change not that they want Hillary to be put into power by the same system.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It is within the powers of Congress to change the electoral system if they want to however both the Democrats and the Republicans have benefitted from the system thus far so why would they want to. Third party candidates were enormously popular but they have not a chance in hell so the notion that Trump is unpopular when most of the electorate was veering towards third party candidate suggests they want the system to change not that they want Hillary to be put into power by the same system.

Where's the evidence that third party candidates were 'enormously popular'? Honestly, you've no rationality regarding measuring popularity. The most popular candidate was Hillary - by 1.7 million votes.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Where's the evidence that third party candidates were 'enormously popular'? Honestly, you've no rationality regarding measuring popularity. The most popular candidate was Hillary - by 1.7 million votes.

Independent candidates won two states and in a number states third party candidates did well.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Independent candidates won two states and in a number states third party candidates did well.

Not in the presidential election they didn't.

InTheTrees

InTheTrees wrote: »

You're missing the point.

Because its possible in the US political system to win the election but lose the peoples vote, that will follow trump for his entire presidency. He has no mandate. Its like a minority gvmt.

Same thing happened with George w bush. He lost the popular vote and he was in dire shape for the first nne months until the 9/11 attacks basically saved him.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It is within the powers of Congress to change the electoral system if they want to however both the Democrats and the Republicans have benefitted from the system thus far so why would they want to. Third party candidates were enormously popular but they have not a chance in hell so the notion that Trump is unpopular when most of the electorate was veering towards third party candidate suggests they want the system to change not that they want Hillary to be put into power by the same system.

What are you on about? That has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I posted about losing the popular vote.

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

What are you on about? That has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I posted about losing the popular vote.

Your cribbing about who won the election and I am simple saying that it is the Congress that determines how the Nation is run. Stop blaming Trump for a feature of the political system. Trump won according to the terms set forte in the Constitution as designed by Thomas Jefferson. A serious attempt to change how America worked was when the Confederates wanted to turn America into a decentralized state which did not work and resulted in the most costly war in US history. Since then the system is 18th century.

Amerika

For your viewing enjoyment, here is a general look at our mainstream media’s freakout over Trump winning the election. No bias, eh?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

For your viewing enjoyment, here is a general look at our mainstream media’s freakout over Trump winning the election. No bias, eh?

Plenty of bias. Mainly from MSNBC, no shock there. I see there were no snippets of Foxnews in there. Wonder why that was.