Trump is Hitler? Oh, seriously?

[klonk]

That's right. Something is either true or false. It doesn't matter what it says on a site's masthead.

What I said was that polls don't matter, but I meant that a poll report given by a news agency that is approved matters even less. When an official or his representative says don't accept information from one (major) news source but only from the sources he selects, then I am suspicious of that source. It's a very Russian model, and looks like state-sponsored journalism.

I'm not spending a whole lot of time watching the matter, but what I have actually seen Trump do is point to bad reporting and to repeat offenders.

This isn't the CCCP. Anyone can print anything. Anyone can say anything about it, even the prez.

The other day CNN ran a factual story that I heartily approved, a 5W story about racial/religious violence in Sweden. Straight news isn't rocket surgery.

[Steve James]

The other day CNN ran a factual story that I heartily approved, a 5W story about racial/religious violence in Sweden.

Should I say good on ya? Your approval has nothing to do with the truth either, no? I'm sure curious why people are picking on Sweden. Why not France or Germany? Better yet, why not Norway?

Sweden may even have a bigger problem because they've taken in more immigrants. I think the obvious subtext is about Muslim immigrants, at least now. It's that stuff that lies under the surface that makes "the truth" merely a tool. It's not about statistics (or who or where the most crimes are. We all know that they'll be in the poorest areas. It really isn't rocket science). Here, it's used as the basis for saying that Trump was right about something he said about Sweden. Then we get pages of links to videos proving him right. Of course, all he implied was that something had happened in Sweden. Ok, he heard it on FOX news. Did that make what he said true? Waaal, not really.

But, the efforts to prove him right have nothing to do with Sweden. It's about Trump's policy for here. Betcha nobody here who's posted except Bao could actually explain Sweden's immigration policy, other than it takes in Muslim refugees. And, it's not because Muslims commit a statistically relevant percentage of crimes, or dope dealing. For those, we have to vilify others. Well, that's changing now.

Anyway, as I've said, I don't let the news manipulate me. I take Twain's perspective on that. Afa refugees, I only have a moral and ethical perspective toward them, not a political one. I don't care how deep they delve into the background of someone who wants to come here. However, I am concerned on a social and political level about how American (Muslim, Jewish and other) citizens are treated.

[klonk]

Thing is, I certainly do not approve of news stories that twist people's words, that slant the facts or that bury the lede and editorialize in the mean time. So my approval means that much: that I understand good workmanship when I see it in a news article, and bad work too.

Here's a story with a big fat flaw in it. How many can see the problem with the reporting here?

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/23/1 ... he-Country

[Steve James]

The only flaw is that I have no idea whether he said it or not. So, I won't spend time criticizing the report. I would, however, criticize the attempts to destroy agencies like the EPA, etc. But, that's not the focus of discussion, unfortunately. For example, the pipeline protest is over but, apparently, there has been a spill at a nearby pipeline. We can argue about the spill, and whether the reporting is correct, but we should try to agree on the need to prevent spills if they happen. And, personally, I think that protecting the water supply should be higher on our list of national priorities than removing legislation that punishes polluters or diminishes the power of agencies to monitor and punish them. If someone reports that Trump wants to do that, then we agree.

[klonk]

Hint: Look up "deconstruction" in the dictionary and try to figure out which one OF THOSE meanings Bannon actually meant. See? It ain't rocket surgery.

[Steve James]

I'm not about to try to figure out which one of the possible meanings that that guy said, any more than I'll try to parse Trump.
That's just time wasting. How about I accept your point and agree that Bannon's words could be interpreted differently. I just pointed out that I wouldn't rely on the gov't's selected news sources.

And please, quit with the condescension and smugness. They serve no purpose. You're much brighter than I am anyway.

[klonk]

So "deconstruction," the academic term to do with critical analysis and new insights, gets misrepresented to form a lurid meaning unintended by the speaker. That's dishonest reporting. Or if it is not willfully dishonest it is grossly incompetent. My arm is not broken so I am able to use a dictionary. Apparently they need some help in that line at the Kos. Lookee: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... nstruction

The Kos story deserves your attention because it gives us a usefully glaring example of why Trump is bashing reporters and why a lot of his fellow citizens are nodding in agreement.

At that, Trump is less critical of the press than was Thomas Jefferson.

[Steve James]

I can't speak to how people use the literary term deconstruction. I'm not sure that they would even know Derrida. However, as a form of analysis, deconstruction simply implies that words alone do not create meaning, and that the reader puts them together to do so. It's the gaps between the words, consequently, that also have meaning.

Well, you mentioned Jefferson; but, we could take the phrase "All men are created equal." We could take it literally --as many people still do. Or, we could understand that the person who wrote or spoke those words might have meant something completely different than we do.

So, deconstructing Jefferson's words and deconstructing Bannon's has to take into account the context. Deconstruction, moreover, applies to textual analysis. That is, not analysis of authorial intent. In fact, what we're dealing with in this conversation is what's called audience response. I.e., the same texts presented before different audiences will have different meanings.

If yours is a complaint about an error, fine. That's what retractions and libel suits are for. And, it's not like Trump (or Bannon or anyone) hasn't had to walk back something that he's said. If you're talking about misinterpretation, that's true; there's plenty of that. If you mean that a news source deliberately misstates something they know to be untrue, as opposed to misinterpreting something their own way, that is a matter of interpretation.

But, because someone misquotes or misinterprets Bannon, it does not mean that "Trump is right" about "the media" or anything. Yes, Jefferson had a hard time with the media. I don't know how he handled it. He probably had a lot of other things to worry about as President. He was a great man, even with his flaws.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

So strange. So, Trump comes out and calls the "mainstream" media liars and fake news. But, everyone knows that Trump can't help but lie everytime he opens his mouth. Also, the most popular cable news station in the nation is Fox News. But Fox has been consistently ranked as the least accurate (as in they tell lies) cable news channel. This is distraction and misdirection, pure and simple. Trump lies more than any President I have seen (they all lie). He lies bigly and about the small stuff, too. Fox news lies all the time, too. But conservatives don't seem to mind that. Hmmm.

Then there is the never-ending stream of Russian connections. Funny, Obama was so horrible for exploring socialist and communist thought in his college days, but Trump and his people are getting caught lying about their dealings with Mr. KGB on a weekly basis and mums the word. It would be nice to see some consistency rather than blatantly partisan hypocrisy.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

The number of close Trump associates who have been accused of having undisclosed contact with Russian agents, or who have reportedly been investigated by the F.B.I., now stands at 7. Here's the scorecard:

1. Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager;

2. Michael Cohen, his personal lawyer;

3. Roger Stone, a longtime political associate;

4. Carter Page, an oil-industry consultant who acted as one of his foreign-policy advisers;

5. Michael Flynn, Trump campaign advisor and, briefly, national security advisor;

6. Jeff Sessions, Trump campaign advisor and now attorney general;

7. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and top White House aide (see story below).

Why were there so many contacts with Russian operatives and known spies before and after the election, and why were they so frequent?

Why did most of these people try to hide them, or even deny they occurred?

How many more revelations will be necessary until the trail leads directly to Trump?

[klonk]

I liked this sidebar from the Merriam-Webster page I linked to:

Did You Know?
Deconstruction doesn't actually mean "demolition;" instead it means "breaking down" or analyzing something (especially the words in a work of fiction or nonfiction) to discover its true significance, which is supposedly almost never exactly what the author intended. A feminist may deconstruct an old novel to show how even an innocent-seeming story somehow depends on the oppression of women. A new western may deconstruct the myths of the old West and show lawmen as vicious and criminals as flawed but decent. Table manners, The Sound of Music, and cosmetics ads have all been the subjects of deconstructionist analysis. Of course, not everyone agrees with deconstructionist interpretations, and some people reject the whole idea of deconstruction, but most of us have run into it by now even if we didn't realize it.

But the Kos has as the meaning destruction and dismantling and points to awful results to follow. Sometimes the line between stupid and dishonest is too thin to call.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Bannon said that they are going to deconstruct these departments. What's the argument?

Rick Perry said that he wanted to abolish the Department of Energy. Now he runs it.

Scott Pruit sued the EPA 12 times as Gov. Now he runs it.

Ben Carson has been vocal in his criticism of HUD enforcing anti-discrimination laws (which Trump had to settle multiple times). Now Carson is the head of the Dept.

The list goes on and on. It seems pretty obvious what they are doing. They even admit it. But, then people like you come along and try and use mental jujitsu to get around the obvious.

[klonk]

But, then people like you come along and try and use mental jujitsu to get around the obvious.

I see myself as a realist. It will take more than a department head cynical about the roles and practices of the organization to get rid of a department. Any elimination of departments is the job of Congress. Departments have a grotesque and ingrown life of their own, and that is what, I hope, will be deconstructed.

Bannon said that they are going to deconstruct these departments. What's the argument?

The argument is what that means. Go source the Bannon quotes, consider the claims in the Kos article and get back to me. A peek at the dictionary would not be amiss.

[klonk]

If you substitute "very critically reevaluated" for "deconstructed," Bannon's quotes retain their meaning but the Kos article falls apart.

If you substitute "destruction" then you are putting words in Bannon's mouth and doing it in a way that transgresses the dictionary.

Because semantics matter unless you are a journalist?

[klonk]

Discuss.

Hitler's backers thought government should do more, much more. Trump's backers say we should have less of that.

Nobody did.