Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Really Interested

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sortof. They've not really ruled on the merits of the ban, that is scheduled for later in the year. They've more left parts of it in place as the 'least damaging' outcome until they can make such a ruling. I'll try to track down the judgement in total.

I think this is it I have not read it yet. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

Manic Moran

OK, full opinion is here.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

Three interesting points.
1) All nine judges agreed to lift the orders staying the ban against refugees and the like.
2) As mentioned, it does not affect those who have an extant relationship with the US. Such as their close family live here, or they are attending a university etc. It specifically says that workarounds would not be kindly received (The example given was of a non-profit who hires foreigners).
3) Some of the judges would have lifted it against everyone, even if they had an extant relationship. The argument, and it's reasonable enough, "Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt— whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country" The entire last paragraph of the dissent is worth reading.

Again, it is to be noted that the partial stay of the injunction is not a ruling on its merits.

Lux23

I wonder what he actually does all day. Does he do much of the work the President is supposed to do?

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

The questions, finally, are starting into why Trump has done nothing in terms of response against Russia.

From Tweeter, it seems Trump is trying to divert attention to Obama on this issue. Whilst he may be right, it serves to highlight that Russia did play an active role in trying to infiltrate the democratic process and second that Trump has failed to do anything since his election.

This will only serve to highlight his own lack of any actions and the questions will continue.

It seems very odd that as POTUS he would have access to these reports showing Russia attempted inference and yet he has done nothing at all about it

In fairness Leeroy, I don't remember Trump saying there was no Russian interference, just that there was no collusion between himself and the Russians. That's an important distinction to make for me.

I do agree that he should have done more about it with regards possible sanctions etc.

mcmoustache

Lux23 wrote: »

I wonder what he actually does all day. Does he do much of the work the President is supposed to do?

The morning seems to involve watching Fox and Friends and tweeting on the shítter.

He seems to do the presidenty stuff for the rest of the day. In the evenings, he reportedly just wanders around the White House.

On the weekends, he heads off to play golf but I assume it's not just about the golf - there's probably some emoluments clause violating going on there too.

Lux23

I bet he would love to get out of it - he can't be enjoying it.

Leroy42

Lux23 wrote: »

I bet he would love to get out of it - he can't be enjoying it.

What, you mean all the power, attention, money making possibilities, access to people even his money couldn't buy in the past, access to secret information even his money couldn't get in the past.

Respect, even if for many it is the office rather than the man.

What better place for a narcissist than the position of the most powerful man in the world.

he surrounds himself with yes man, listens only to the media that reflects well on him (Fox News etc) and you can bet that he thinks everything is going great.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The SCOTUS have ruled that some parts of trumps travel ban can be allowed. That's dissapointing.

If USSC Justice Anthony Kennedy announces he's retiring during the recess, there might be a totally different reading in October when it sit's again.

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

If USSC Justice Anthony Kennedy announces he's retiring during the recess, there might be a totally different reading in October when it sit's again.

Why? The score was 9-0 in favour of lifting the injunction for non-US-affiliated persons, and 6-3 against lifting it for everyone. Even if Kennedy was replaced by someone who would join the dissent (or dissent entirely) you'd be looking at 8-1 or 5-4 for the same result.

Again, this is not a judgement on the merits, and we can't really tell from this how the ban would hold up when actually heard, but as a matter of legal procedure, the lower judges got relatively slapped by SCOTUS as a whole.

JRant

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why? The score was 9-0 in favour of lifting the injunction for non-US-affiliated persons, and 6-3 against lifting it for everyone. Even if Kennedy was replaced by someone who would join the dissent (or dissent entirely) you'd be looking at 8-1 or 5-4 for the same result.

Again, this is not a judgement on the merits, and we can't really tell from this how the ban would hold up when actually heard, but as a matter of legal procedure, the lower judges got relatively slapped by SCOTUS as a whole.

I could be wrong here but hasn't the general consensus been that the lower courts have overstepped the mark but they were willing to do this in order to get the travel ban overturned or at the very least have it reviewed by SCOTUS.

Christy42

Big win for Trump. The practical benefits are null but they always were. A politician keeping a promise will always play well with their base. He promised a Muslim ban and there is now a ban in place. The details of how much of it got put into place are irrelevant in terms of his base (might matter to the people affected but that is a different story and one Republicans don't care about).

He will get a few pips back in the polls I reckon unfortunately.

It will be spun as a Trump victory even in spite of the fact that the judges disagreed with their position and took a position in between Trump and other judges.

I am curious as to why this ban is needed at this point aside from ensuring your team wins. Measures that stopped the need for the full ban should have been in place for months now according to the original timeline. I have heard nothing of them but of course who cares. Actual security was never the goal-it is just a bit more transparent in this case.

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

I am curious as to why this ban is needed at this point aside from ensuring your team wins. Measures that stopped the need for the full ban should have been in place for months now according to the original timeline. I have heard nothing of them but of course who cares. Actual security was never the goal-it is just a bit more transparent in this case.

My guess is that at least it will develop some parameters for next time so there will be less confusion and more efficiency. Every time one of these States vs Feds things gets to SCOTUS things get more fleshed out.

The ultimate goal for the Administration is that they want the court to say "Yes, they can do this sort of thing"

JRant wrote: »

I could be wrong here but hasn't the general consensus been that the lower courts have overstepped the mark but they were willing to do this in order to get the travel ban overturned or at the very least have it reviewed by SCOTUS.

No. The Lower courts will have ruled as they saw fit. Either side can appeal up to SCOTUS if necessary, there was no requirement for them to rule any particular way. Besides, part of the purpose of the lower courts is to stop anything getting that high to begin with.

JRant

Manic Moran wrote: »

My guess is that at least it will develop some parameters for next time so there will be less confusion and more efficiency. Every time one of these States vs Feds things gets to SCOTUS things get more fleshed out.

The ultimate goal for the Administration is that they want the court to say "Yes, they can do this sort of thing"



No. The Lower courts will have ruled as they saw fit. Either side can appeal up to SCOTUS if necessary, there was no requirement for them to rule any particular way. Besides, part of the purpose of the lower courts is to stop anything getting that high to begin with.

Ah okay, I was under the impression that the President had the power to implement such a ban but because he had previously called it a muslim ban then it ran into conflict with the first amendment.

Hank Scorpio

Really Interested wrote: »

The previous poster said "68 percent of Americans are at least moderately concerned about the possibility that Trump or his campaign associates had inappropriate ties to Russia."

The important bit is "possibility that Trump or his campaign associates"

And on the flip side.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/339248-dems-push-leaders-to-talk-less-about-russia

"A recent Harvard-Harris poll reveals the risks inherent for the Democrats, who are hoping to make big gains — or even win back the House — in 2018. The survey found that while 58 percent of voters said they’re concerned that Trump may have business dealings with Moscow, 73 percent said they’re worried that the ongoing investigations are preventing Congress from tackling issues more vital to them.

“While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country,” said Harvard-Harris co-director Mark Penn."

Manic Moran

JRant wrote: »

Ah okay, I was under the impression that the President had the power to implement such a ban but because he had previously called it a muslim ban then it ran into conflict with the first amendment.

Correct. That was the primary basis for the injunction in the first place.
However, there are also arguments that just because there may be an invalid reason for the ban, that does not trump any valid reasons for it. See the dissent from the 9th, unusual because given the leave to appeal was denied, there was no need for the judges to give an opinion: These judges felt strongly enough to publish an opinion anyway. https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105%20en%20banc.pdf

Even if we have questions about the basis for the President’s ultimate findings—whether it was a “Muslim ban” or something else—we do not get to peek behind the curtain. So long as there is one “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end. As the Court explained in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999):
The Executive should not have to disclose its “real” reasons for deeming nationals of a particular country a special threat—or indeed for simply wishing to antagonize a particular foreign country by focusing on that country’s nationals—and even it if did disclose them a court would be ill equipped to determine their authenticity and utterly unable to assess their adequacy. Id. at 491; see Mezei, 345 U.S. at 210–12; Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543.

I strongly suspect that the line of reasoning in the dissent will be addressed, win or lose, in the SCOTUS opinions.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why? The score was 9-0 in favour of lifting the injunction for non-US-affiliated persons, and 6-3 against lifting it for everyone. Even if Kennedy was replaced by someone who would join the dissent (or dissent entirely) you'd be looking at 8-1 or 5-4 for the same result.

Again, this is not a judgement on the merits, and we can't really tell from this how the ban would hold up when actually heard, but as a matter of legal procedure, the lower judges got relatively slapped by SCOTUS as a whole.

It wasn't really an adjustment of the ruling, more the bench membership of the USSC. If Kennedy did retire [as speculated on Fox last night - damn and blast them] he might not be the only one as none of the SCJ's are getting younger. Anyways onwards and upwards.

JRant

Cheers Manic, that's an interesting read.

It's an interesting case but one I feel the SCOTUS will rule in favour of the ban ultimately. The implications would/could be huge if the ban was upheld though. Would first amendment rights apply to non citizens outside of the US?
How on earth would this be applied?

Ipse dixit

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

And on the flip side.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/339248-dems-push-leaders-to-talk-less-about-russia

"A recent Harvard-Harris poll reveals the risks inherent for the Democrats, who are hoping to make big gains — or even win back the House — in 2018. The survey found that while 58 percent of voters said they’re concerned that Trump may have business dealings with Moscow, 73 percent said they’re worried that the ongoing investigations are preventing Congress from tackling issues more vital to them.

“While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country,” said Harvard-Harris co-director Mark Penn."

The problem for any Democrat revival is that it will be lead by Schumer, Pelosi, Warren etc. whom are toxic brands to a lot of Americans. They have too much political baggage to lead any sort of Democrat revival in the US. Maybe even Clinton might get involved. Either way Senior Democrats are as unpopular as their Republican counterparts.

If this health care bill does indeed prove to be worse than ACA then it will be very interesting to see what kind of a platform the Republicans try and run in the mid-terms as you can't be populist and churn out a worse health care act. I think we'll see a lot more run offs with third party candidates.

Water John

So now, according to the WH, OBama is the one guilty of collusion with Russia!!

CBO now being attacked also.

Overheal

An elected and sitting President can't really be guilty of collusion can he? Not unless there are some very specific case circumstances I would reckon. I can't see how Obama could be guilty of collusion

Peregrinus

Christy42 wrote: »

. . . am curious as to why this ban is needed at this point aside from ensuring your team wins. Measures that stopped the need for the full ban should have been in place for months now according to the original timeline. I have heard nothing of them but of course who cares. Actual security was never the goal-it is just a bit more transparent in this case.

One of the paragraphs of the stayed order called for executive agencies to develop a long-term approach within 90 days. But, of course, the order was stayed, meaning that directive to develop a long-term approach never took effect.

But for the stay, the 90 days would have expired on 14 June. On 12 June, however, one of the lower courts (the Ninth circuit) "tweaked" the original stay in a way that allowed an Executive Order to develop long-term solutions. On 14 June Trump issued such an order, again for 90 days, but to start on 14 June. That 90 days will expire in mid-September, before the Supreme Court hearing in October.

In the judgment just given, the Supreme Court has accepted at face value the administration's statement that the travel ban/entry restrictions are temprorary in nature. Based on that, they have said rather pointedly that "we fully expect that the relief we grant today will permit the Executive to conclude its internal work and provide adequate notice to foreign governments within the 90-day life of §2(c)."

In other words, they're saying to the administration, do not come back to us in October looking for a continuation of the "temporary" bans that you have been trying to introduce since February, and that we are now allowing you to implement in part. You've said they're temporary bans, and our relatively benign attitude towards them is based on an acceptance that they are temporary bans. If you start looking for extensions, all bets are off.

Hank Scorpio

Interesting piece and may offer some inklings to the Flynn leaks.

http://circa.com/politics/accountability/did-the-fbi-retaliate-against-michael-flynn-by-launching-russia-probe

"The FBI launched a criminal probe against former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn two years after the retired Army general roiled the bureau’s leadership by intervening on behalf of a decorated counterterrorism agent who accused now-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other top officials of sexual discrimination, according to documents and interviews.

The FBI sought to block Flynn’s support for the agent, asking a federal administrative law judge in May 2014 to keep Flynn and others from becoming a witness in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case, memos obtained by Circa show."

Hank Scorpio

Some of those veritas reporters released teaser footage of CNN producers, bad publicity for them after they had to fire 3 reporters today.

https://streamable.com/4j78e

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Some of those veritas reporters released teaser footage of CNN producers, bad publicity for them after they had to fire 3 reporters today.

https://streamable.com/4j78e

Project Veritas is a somewhat controversial source to be citing, Hank. Just sayin'.

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Project Veritas is a somewhat controversial source to be citing, Hank. Just sayin'.

Nobody on the right cares about how accurate Wikipedia is and others sites like the "fact-check" genre, they are based on deception. It's opinion journalism pretending to be some sort of heightened objectivity. They are not a scientific tool for measuring honesty.

That said, the media edit and smear people for livelihood. Veritas do nothing different.

dwayneshintzy

Snopes is "based on deception"? How so?

What have they done to show some sort of left-wing bias?

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Nobody on the right cares about how accurate Wikipedia is . . .

Nobody on the right cares how accurate any source is, as long as what the source is saying suits the right agenda. And pretty much the same goes for people on the left.

But for somebody who's not driven by ideology, but is actually concerned to observe reality and draw conclusions from that, reliability of sources is very much an issue.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

. . . and others sites like the "fact-check" genre, they are based on deception. It's opinion journalism pretending to be some sort of heightened objectivity. They are not a scientific tool for measuring honesty.

Fact-checking sites aren't supposed to be measuring honesty. They're supposed to be measuring factuality. And, since you mention scientific tools, it's axiomatic to the whole notion of "science" that factuality is indeed measurable.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

. . . That said, the media edit and smear people for livelihood. Veritas do nothing different.

Veritas, as far as I can see, do nothing else. Which is different.

PS: It's probably worth pointing out that the three journalists fired from CNN had to go because they had published a story without submitting it to the verification and fact-checking processes required by CNN's editorial standards. You can't simultaneously think that CNN should be embarrassed by this lapse, and that fact-checking is based on deception. You can think one of these things or the other, but if you glide smoothly between them you must expect to be met with justified derision.

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Veritas, as far as I can see, do nothing else. Which is different.

PS: It's probably worth pointing out that the three journalists fired from CNN had to go because they had published a story without submitting it to the verification and fact-checking processes required by CNN's editorial standards. You can't simultaneously think that CNN should be embarrassed by this lapse, and that fact-checking is based on deception. You can think one of these things or the other, but if you glide smoothly between them you must expect to be met with justified derision.

My point is, instead of watching the video your response is to point to Wikipedia and dismiss it's contents entirely. Every bias or editing O'Keefe is accused of, every media outlet does the same to push a narrative.

I'm not comparing Veritas to a fact checking site, they are no more than an effective tool for the Political right to push an agenda against the left and the media.

One of the same journalists was involved in promoting the story Comey was going to refute Trump in the hearings. They spent hours pushing it on the air.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/336871-cnn-issues-correction-after-comey-statement-contradicts-reporting

It's not a lapse, 93% of their coverage towards Trump is negative according to a Harvard study. It's constant negativity. Instead of covering the Manchester attack they put it to the side for an hour talking about Russia. They've spent the last 2 years doing it. MSNBC doesn't get the heat because they don't pretend to be objective and down the middle.

Here's the full video, maybe there's one other person in this thread who might find it entertaining https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE

All they are doing is exactly what other media outlets do to Trump. The pussy tape was leaked by NBC for e.g.

To the other poster, when I'm off my phone I'll try link some reasons why I called fact sites deceptive.

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

My point is, instead of watching the video your response is to point to Wikipedia and dismiss it's contents entirely . . .

You're making this stuff up, Hank. Where did I "dismiss entirely" the contents of the video? I have made no comment at all on the contents of the video.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It's not a lapse, 93% of their coverage towards Trump is negative according to a Harvard study. It's constant negativity.

Lack of bias is reporting the facts. Saying how much of their coverage is negative shows nothing either way.

I am not sure if the level is 93% but facts have an anti Trump bias. To get far complimenting Trump you have to lie or be ok with Trump's version of double think (see Trump's sudden reversal on Russia).

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're making this stuff up, Hank. Where did I "dismiss entirely" the contents of the video? I have made no comment at all on the contents of the video.

Well you did dismiss it using "fact checkers", which is laughable in itself without addressing it's content. That in itself is just a subtle attempt to dismiss it.

"Project Veritas is a somewhat controversial source to be citing, Hank. Just sayin'."

You're basically saying it's taboo for this thread. I don't find them controversial at all.

Igotadose

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Well you did dismiss it using "fact checkers", which is laughable in itself without addressing it's content. That in itself is just a subtle attempt to dismiss it.

"Project Veritas is a somewhat controversial source to be citing, Hank. Just sayin'."

You're basically saying it's taboo for this thread. I don't find them controversial at all.

Eh. Negativity towards Trump is true. And there are sound reasons for it, as per this WaPO article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/19/coverage-of-president-trump-has-been-4-to-1-negative-but-that-isnt-really-the-point/?utm_term=.8a2452e81f5f

Worth reading, if you think whining about Trump being covered negatively is in fact interesting. Summary quote: " When you do controversial things — which polls show a huge amount of things Trump does are — you get criticized by certain people. And when you promise to accomplish amazing things and the results contradict all that you promised, it's difficult to cover that as a win."

None of this changes the facts that Trump and his team are being investigated for collusion with election-tampering Russians, that his Muslim ban bill and ACA reform bills are terrible, and not working on being President is bad. Trump gets covered negatively - well, do something positive for a change. Like announce some sanctions on Russia for election tampering. He's admitted to it. Obama sanctioned them.

That'd be positive. Complaining that manbaby Trump gets a bad deal for the media is silly. He's the President. Act like one.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Lack of bias is reporting the facts. Saying how much of their coverage is negative shows nothing either way.

I am not sure if the level is 93% but facts have an anti Trump bias. To get far complimenting Trump you have to lie or be ok with Trump's version of double think (see Trump's sudden reversal on Russia).

Maybe that's true in a world where 96% of media donations weren't to one side.

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Well you did dismiss it using "fact checkers", which is laughable in itself without addressing it's content. That in itself is just a subtle attempt to dismiss it.

I dismissed the contents of the video without referring to the contents of the video? That's quite a good trick, isn't it?

Hank, the voices in your head are not your friend. It's up to you whether you listen to them or not, but I am entitled as least to make this demand: stop imputing them to me.

I am not dismissing the contents of the video. I do not know what the contents of the video are. I have not viewed the video. I have not read anything written by anybody which describes the contents of the video.

Can I be any clearer than that?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

"Project Veritas is a somewhat controversial source to be citing, Hank. Just sayin'."

You're basically saying it's taboo for this thread. I don't find them controversial at all.

I'm not saying it's taboo for this thread. I'm saying you're offering us no reason to watch the video. Veritas are said to have the habit of editing videos in order to present a deliberately misleading impression of reality. Given that, why would we watch the video? We would have no way of knowing whether it reflected reality or not. We'd know no more about reality after watching it than we knew before, so what would be the point?

As for you not finding them controversial, whether there's a controversy about something is a matter of external observation, not internal feeling. There is abundant controversy over Project Veritas. If you haven't found it, it can only be because you go out of your way not to look for it.

Igotadose

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Maybe that's true in a world where 96% of media donations weren't to one side.

Media donations? What are those?

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Maybe that's true in a world where 96% of media donations weren't to one side.

If the facts do not reflect favourably on Trump, and you interpret reporting the facts as a manifestation of "anti-Trump bias", then naturally you're going to interpret support for media which report the facts as support "for one side".

Hank Scorpio

Igotadose wrote: »

Worth reading, if you think whining about Trump being covered negatively is in fact interesting. Summary quote: " When you do controversial things — which polls show a huge amount of things Trump does are — you get criticized by certain people. And when you promise to accomplish amazing things and the results contradict all that you promised, it's difficult to cover that as a win."

No, I'm not saying he shouldn't be covered negatively or that he's done a great job, I'm saying it's ridiculous how negative it is. Meaningless things are vastly exaggerated while there's been false story after story, an obsession of Russia collusion without any proof of wrongdoing that blends legitimate criticisms into mush which in the long term renders such concerns meaningless.

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hank, the voices in your head are not your friend. It's up to you whether you listen to them or not, but I am entitled as least to make this demand: stop imputing them to me.

Lmao. This place is a nut house.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Maybe that's true in a world where 96% of media donations weren't to one side.

Errrm. This dances around the fact that facts show up Trump as an idiot repeatedly. I mean at first reading it looks like it is meant to be a counter argument to mine but on closer reading it is entirely tangential.

Are you going to formulate an argument against the statement that facts have an anti Trump bias? That reporting the truth will show Trump in a massively negative light?

I mean even you who is as close to a defender for him here does not like him and your main issue is you don't like the democrats or the media (iirc, correct that if I am wrong). None of that suggests that cnn stories (while specifically talking about Trump and not the Dems) should end up with a load of favourable stories about Trump.

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

No, I'm not saying he shouldn't be covered negatively or that he's done a great job, I'm saying it's ridiculous how negative it is. Meaningless things are vastly exaggerated while there's been false story after story, an obsession of Russia collusion without any proof of wrongdoing that blends legitimate criticisms into mush which in the long term renders such concerns meaningless.

But the media reports false stories whether they are pro-Trump or anti-Trump. Indeed, the many false stories aggressively promoted by Trump himself have received extensive media coverage; that's hardly evidence of anti-Trump bias, is it?

There may well be a phenomenon whereby in the internet-driven publish-instantly media world that we inhabit today, stories are published without proper investigation or verification, and of course there is also a growing blurring of the distinction between reportage and entertainment, which distorts choices about what to publish, and creates an additional incentive to publish "juicy" stories. All of that opens up opportunities for people minded to generate fake news either as clickbait to boost revenue, or to advance a social political agenda.

But that gives rise to two comments. First, it's not inherently an anti-Trump or pro-Trump phenomenon. It may degrade our news coverage, but it's not a degradation that's biassed against Trump or the political currents that he represents. They're quite capable of taking full advantage of them, and it's not difficult to point to abundant examples. And, secondly, if that is the problem, railing against fact-checking and the mainstream media is hardly the solution. If there's a bias here it's yours; in this very conversation you denounce anti-Trump coverage as "meaningless", but display a strong animus towards anyone who is sceptical of coverage that favours a Trumpish agenda.

If you're going to be sceptical and respectable about it, you have to be first and foremost sceptical of your own assumptions, your own preferences. The stories that seem to you too good to be true are probably the ones you should be most suspicious of; they're not likely to be true. If that's not your attitude, then you're not being sceptical at all; you're just being biassed, and trying to pass off your bias as scepticism.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Errrm. This dances around the fact that facts show up Trump as an idiot repeatedly. I mean at first reading it looks like it is meant to be a counter argument to mine but on closer reading it is entirely tangential.

Are you going to formulate an argument against the statement that facts have an anti Trump bias? That reporting the truth will show Trump in a massively negative light?

Trump has lied there's no disputing that and I don't think it's crazy to hold him a negative light. What I do think is crazy, is to not hold others including the previous administration to the same standard and realize that if the media at least tried to act somewhat objectively, things would be in a better place.

You talk about facts, but the biggest fact of all is that there's no damning evidence of Russian collusion, and yet it's all CNN and other networks have talked about for 6 months, which was based on a now discredited New York times story. Chuck Todd had Sanders on yesterday and ignored his bank fraud investigation completely. Trump holds a rally a few days ago and for all their obsession with him the only network that aired it live was Fox afaik, CNN and MSNBC definitely didn't. CNN and others ignored the Manchester attack in favour of pushing Russia for over an hour. Then there's the Loretta Lynch investigation, again it gets zero airtime.

I think a huge double standard exists and because of that the negatively is multiplied tenfold. Anything that sways the narrative is off limits.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/26/mainstream-media-coverage-trump-russia-investigation-vs-loretta-lynch-probe

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you're going to be sceptical and respectable about it, you have to be first and foremost sceptical of your own assumptions, your own preferences. The stories that seem to you too good to be true are probably the ones you should be most suspicious of; they're not likely to be true. If that's not your attitude, then you're not being sceptical at all; you're just being biassed, and trying to pass off your bias as scepticism.

It's not assumptions, Wikileaks dumps showed what was going on and only 4% of journalists donated to Trump.

Peregrinus

I think you're being a little one-eyed about this, Hank. Loretta Lynch is a former Attorney-General of the United States; Trump is the serving President. The investigations are in no way comparable in political or constitutional significance, or in newsworthiness. Yes, there's "no damning evidence" of Russian collusion, but the investigation is ongoing, and it's the investigation itself that's the story. If we already had the damning evidence, there'd be no investigation. There was "no damning evidence" of Nixon's collusion in the Watergate cover-up until 4 days before Nixon resigned; does that mean that for the previous two years the media coverage was biassed or disproportionate? The "damning evidence" usually marks the end of these episodes, not the beginning.

Finally, Lynch is keeping a low profile, while Trump is doing everything he can to attract attention to the Russia investigation and to keep people talking about it. Should we conclude that Trump himself part of the anti-Trump double standard?

As for live coverage of Trump's rally, do election rallies normally get live coverage on the major networks? That wasn't my impression. If Fox is giving the Trump rally live coverage, it may be Fox that's out of line and pursuing an agenda, rather than the other networks.

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It's not assumptions, Wikileaks dumps showed what was going on and only 4% of journalists donated to Trump.

Is this the basis for your "96% of media donations" claim above? Are you assuming that every journalist who did not donate to Trump donated to "the other side"? And are you counting other contenders for the Republican nomination as "the other side"?

'Cause, you know, both of those would definitely be "assumptions".

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you're being a little one-eyed about this, Hank. Loretta Lynch is a former Attorney-General of the United States; Trump is the serving President. The investigations are in no way comparable in political or constitutional significance, or in newsworthiness. Yes, there's "no damning evidence" of Russian collusion, but the investigation is ongoing, and it's the investigation itself that's the story. If we already had the damning evidence, there'd be no investigation. There was "no damning evidence" of Nixon's collusion in the Watergate cover-up until 4 days before Nixon resigned; does that mean that for the previous two years the media coverage was biassed or disproportionate? The "damning evidence" usually marks the end of these episodes, not the beginning.

Finally, Lynch is keeping a low profile, while Trump is doing everything he can to attract attention to the Russia investigation and to keep people talking about it. Should we conclude that Trump himself part of the anti-Trump double standard?

As for live coverage of Trump's rally, do election rallies normally get live coverage on the major networks? That wasn't my impression. If Fox is giving the Trump rally live coverage, it may be Fox that's out of line and pursuing an agenda, rather than the other networks.

Funny how the daily press conferences had live media coverage on every network but they won't show his rally, ain't it.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for live coverage of Trump's rally, do election rallies normally get live coverage on the major networks?

Election rallies 3.5 years out from an election should get coverage - they are a sign that the "candidate" is deranged.

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is this the basis for your "96% of media donations" claim above? Are you assuming that every journalist who did not donate to Trump donated to "the other side"? And are you counting other contenders for the Republican nomination as "the other side"?

'Cause, you know, both of those would definitely be "assumptions".

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=96%25+of+journalists+donated+to+Hillary

BabyCheeses

Weren't they the same nutjobs who claimed that planned parenthood were selling parts?

PopePalpatine

Igotadose wrote: »

Media donations? What are those?

Can you blame them for opposing a guy who wants to crack down on freedom of the press, and idolises the likes of Putin who do just that?

Hank Scorpio

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Can you blame them for opposing a guy who wants to crack down on freedom of the press, and idolises the likes of Putin who do just that?

Crazy alright. Sharyl Attkisson, James Rosen and the AP must be bricking it.