KEND wrote: Saw the tampa speech, where do these people come from. Sadly any dignity associated with the presidency has long since evaporated
Bill wrote:The US Stock Markets are at record highs and millions of Americans are benefitting in their retirement savings accounts.
The US Manufacturing Index soared to a 33 year high in this period which were the best numbers since 1983 under President Reagan.
President Trump added 298,000 jobs in his first month alone (after President Obama said jobs were not coming back!).
Illegal immigration is down 67% since President Trump’s Inauguration.
Prodded NATO allies into paying what they pledged to pay. ( Even though I do not see why NATO is needed, they should pay their fare share. )
a relic from the cold war that has exceeded its original mandate, function, and usefulness allowed to exist as a way
of extending the US sphere of influence and control. The things done in the name of NATO would not be allowed if it was the WARSAW pact doing them.
The "WARSAW Pact officially disbanded in March and July of 1991 following the dissolution of the Soviet Union."
" The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union"
NATO was created in 1949, the Soviet Union ended in 1991, NATO won maybe some one should let them know. Why is it still needed, why has it continued to seek members constantly expanding, who it is defending against.
" He insulted the Kochs, His hubris knows no limits!!"
Ken, your priorities are backwards. As long as he does a good job for us, who cares about his hubris? Who cares if he puts ketchup on his steaks?
windwalker wrote:90+ % of the news media is biased against this administration. Having been very wrong in their predictions of the 2016 election they are still trying
to make their initial predictions true by any means in spite of contrary facts which they either ignore, or report in a misleading way, that show the administration being quite successful with positive results for enacted polices.
LaoDan wrote:windwalker wrote:90+ % of the news media is biased against this administration. Having been very wrong in their predictions of the 2016 election they are still trying
to make their initial predictions true by any means in spite of contrary facts which they either ignore, or report in a misleading way, that show the administration being quite successful with positive results for enacted polices.
Nonsense! It sounds like you have bought into the Trump administration spin.
So, FOX news, which was specifically created to present a biased (conservative) slant on news, is “real” news, while the established and reputable news organizations are suddenly “fake”? Really? The White House press operates more like a PR firm rather than disseminating credible information. Discredit the legitimate news organizations, and one can get away with more, whether self-interested ego boosting, financial gain, attacks on the reputations of unsupportive people and organizations, etc., etc., etc.
Perhaps the news media would seem less antagonistic to Trump if he would not deceive or lie on over half of his statements. The job of news media is to check on what is behind government officials (and others in power) and policies, and the less true or reliable information those entities present in their communications and actions, the less favorable the reporting will sound! Just because Trump attacks everything and everyone (with the notable exception of Barbra Bush when she criticized the administration’s family separation policy) that appears unfavorable to him, does not mean that they are biased! It seems likely that they are essentially unbiased, but report unfavorably due to Trumps own actions and misinformation.
News organizations should be a check on those in power, and should expose abuses committed by privileged and powerful individuals and organizations. I think that it harms democracy when this balancing check on the powerful is discredited. Discrediting legitimate news organizations (and regulatory agencies, and intelligence agencies, and the courts, and...) allows potential abuses of power and position to go unchecked.
I honestly care less about your opinions on Trump than I do about your opinions on news organizations. If you do not like what the local or national news organizations report, then you need to find some other way to research topics in an unbiased manner – perhaps switching instead to world news organizations that research and report on the USA?
I personally am against anyone who seeks to weaken checks on the powerful, and there are plenty people like this in all political parties. To me, the Trump administration is especially bad in this regard, and this includes his treatment of news organizations.
LaoDan wrote:[
So, FOX news, which was specifically created to present a biased (conservative) slant on news, is “real” news, while the established and reputable news organizations are suddenly “fake”? Really? The White House press operates more like a PR firm rather than disseminating credible information. Discredit the legitimate news organizations, and one can get away with more, whether self-interested ego boosting, financial gain, attacks on the reputations of unsupportive people and organizations, etc., etc., etc. Should be pretty easy to prove. Just post some stats on what the major news org report... for example
"Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity. Of
news reports with a clear tone, negative reports outpaced positive ones by 80
percent to 20 percent. Trump’s coverage was unsparing. In no week did the
coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its
peak (see Figure 5).https://research.hks.harvard.edu/public ... px?Id=1590
Perhaps the news media would seem less antagonistic to Trump if he would not deceive or lie on over half of his statements. The job of news media is to check on what is behind government officials (and others in power) and policies, and the less true or reliable information those entities present in their communications and actions, the less favorable the reporting will sound! Just because Trump attacks everything and everyone (with the notable exception of Barbra Bush when she criticized the administration’s family separation policy) that appears unfavorable to him, does not mean that they are biased! It seems likely that they are essentially unbiased, but report unfavorably due to Trumps own actions and misinformation.
you got your talking points down...but like the news when compared to facts they dont quite add up
"Negative on All Counts
Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days was not merely negative in overall
terms. It was unfavorable on every dimension. There was not a single major topic
where Trump’s coverage was more positive than negative (see Figure 7).https://research.hks.harvard.edu/public ... px?Id=1590
News organizations should be a check on those in power, and should expose abuses committed by privileged and powerful individuals and organizations. I think that it harms democracy when this balancing check on the powerful is discredited. Discrediting legitimate news organizations (and regulatory agencies, and intelligence agencies, and the courts, and...) allows potential abuses of power and position to go unchecked.
I honestly care less about your opinions on Trump than I do about your opinions on news organizations. If you do not like what the local or national news organizations report, then you need to find some other way to research topics in an unbiased manner – perhaps switching instead to world news organizations that research and report on the USA? My opinion is not an opinion it is an observation one that can change when presented with facts, what you have written is an opinion
I personally am against anyone who seeks to weaken checks on the powerful, and there are plenty people like this in all political parties. To me, the Trump administration is especially bad in this regard, and this includes his treatment of news organizations.
“All Presidents deserve critical news coverage from time to time, but the relentlessly hostile coverage Trump has seen thus far is as much a reflection of the media’s ideological bias as anything else,” conclude Noyes and Ciandella. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/er ... 069d86dfa4
CNN is obviously biased against Trump which may be a sacrifice of news objectivity but there is no enforceable law that mandates all news presentations must contain only content that is based on wholly authenticated fact and not contain any opinionated perspectives in any timeframe. It is, however, for such a famed and respected agency, an ethical responsibility, to maintain a balanced and fair forum.
As a major western news media CNN must strive to return to the fundamental ideal of reporting news in a manner that is not selectively subservient to someone’s vested interest to empower a platform for highly manipulative oration. It is disparaging to see many CNN news hosts speak in the same condescending and sarcastic manner which points to a systemic issue and an epic compromise of integrity. https://www.quora.com/Is-CNN-biased-against-Trump
Lao Dan wrote: I personally am against anyone who seeks to weaken checks on the powerful, and there are plenty people like this in all political parties. To me, the Trump administration is especially bad in this regard, and this includes his treatment of news organizations
Steve James wrote:Yeah, but by your own count, 90+ percent of all news media has a negative opinion of Trump. Sure, if I were he, I would be pissed and hate the media. Still, that ignores the fundamental reasons why 90+ of media --worldwide-- has that opinion.
brought to you by the media reporting it as such.
In any case, the amount of negative opinions has nothing to do with the legitimacy of those opinions. Just because almost everyone thinks someone is wrong does not mean that he is right, or that their criticisms are wrong. More simply, if everyone thinks you're an asshole, it doesn't mean you're not.
Yes, he is a victim; but his wounds are self-inflicted. No one has to make up anything. It's unfortunately true that any good he does will be overshadowed by something he says.
He does not portray himself as a victim,
He has said if he does something wrong he expects to be called on it.
He is not a politician, part of the reason why he was elected was because of this.
Steve James wrote:He does not portray himself as a victim,
Yes he does, and you're portraying him that way. He claims he's the victim of a witch hunt all the time.He has said if he does something wrong he expects to be called on it.
Ha, he doesn't admit to being wrong about anything significant. That would be news.He is not a politician, part of the reason why he was elected was because of this.
It doesn't matter why he was elected. He's a fake, whether a fake politician or not.
Steve James wrote:Get over myself? For having an opinion. Shucks, that wasn't even half of my "opinion" about my president, but my opinion doesn't matter. Your entire point is that Trump has been mistreated; that's what a victim is.You do have a habit of mistating what others points are...my post was an answer to LaoDans post.
Trump says the media treats him unfairly, and you back him up with a page of citations.
facts to opinion, its simple
We agree. Trump is a victim. Try again, we dont agree. I pointed out that by many studies the media has a bias that is reflected in their reporting. Trump's reaction is to point this out.... The only difference is that, imo, he doesn't have the self-control to avoid shooting himself in the foot. However, that's trivial. His character and ego are for entertainment purposes only. I don't really care about the popularity contest. I'd like to hear him address poverty in the US. Good now your getting it, you have an opinion
I hate to see his administration roll back or remove clean air, water, and ground pollution regulations, and put fuel-efficiency requirements on hold.
(Yeah, I know. I've already written my Congressperson, and will remember to vote in NOvember).
windwalker wrote:You mentioned fox news... which rates at about 50% ie balanced in its coverage...Which at 50% many seem to feel its slanted for Trump because at 50% it tends to be more neutral then the others. Most of the news org as shown by different studies are not merely checks on the powerful they have become active partisans shaping news events reflecting their views presenting them as factule.
President Trump said his campaign rallies drew larger crowds than concerts for Beyoncé, Jay-Z and Bruce Springsteen. That was one of 15 inaccurate claims he made.
WHAT WAS SAID
“Highways would take 21 years to get approved. We have it down to two years, and it’s going to be one year very shortly.”
THE FACTS
This is exaggerated.
Mr. Trump has doubled a previously exaggerated claim about the permitting process for roads and infrastructure taking a decade. Average wait times for a permit ranged from three to six years from the fiscal years 1999 to 2016, according to the Federal Highway Administration.
In the 2017 fiscal year, the average wait time was three years and 10 months, almost double Mr. Trump’s claim of a two-year period. (Data for the 2018 fiscal year, which ends in September, is not yet available.)
WHAT WAS SAID
“Our first [visa] lottery winner — let’s see, he has seven convictions for theft. He’s killed nine people. And we’re getting him the hell out of our country and giving them to the stupid politicians that have been running the United States for many years.’”
THE FACTS
False.
Mr. Trump has previously said that other countries were not “giving us their best” through the diversity visa lottery program. He has now escalated that unsubstantiated — and vague — claim into a false one by suggesting that foreign governments are sending murderers through the program.
As The New York Times has previously explained, millions of individuals enter the lottery of their own volition, not because they were selected by a foreign government. A computer picks winners at random and, before receiving a visa, the people chosen must undergo a screening process that bars criminals.
WHAT WAS SAID
“Chain migration. And this was a Schumer deal. Schumer wanted this.”
THE FACTS
False.
Mr. Trump is likely confusing the diversity lottery program with “chain migration” or family-based immigration. Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Senate minority leader, sponsored what became the diversity visa lottery in 1990, but family-based immigration has been a facet of American immigration policy long before Mr. Schumer’s political career began.
Family relationships have been a basis for admitting new immigrants since the 1920s, according to the Congressional Research Service, and the United States began promoting family reunification in 1952, which established a hierarchy that prioritized family members like spouses and children over siblings.
WHAT WAS SAID
Beyoncé, Jay-Z and Bruce Springsteen “were drawing crowds smaller than my crowds.”
THE FACTS
False.
This is not the first time that Mr. Trump has compared crowd size to Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s, though it appears to be the first time he has brought the Boss into the mix.
Mr. Trump has claimed 20,000 to 49,000 people attended his biggest rallies during the 2016 presidential campaign. Even taking Mr. Trump at his word, those figures pale in comparison to audiences that have assembled to hear Beyoncé, Jay-Z and Mr. Springsteen perform.
For example, Mr. Springsteen sold out a two-night show in May 2016 in Dublin, drawing an average of 80,000 people to each show. This June, Beyoncé and Jay-Z performed for a crowd of over 57,000 in Berlin. (In addition, it should be noted that fans purchase tickets to hear the musicians in question, while Mr. Trump’s rallies are free.)
OTHER CLAIMS
Mr. Trump also repeated several other claims The Times has previously debunked:
■ He falsely claimed the United States Steel Corporation “is opening up seven plants.” (It has not announced a single new plant.)
■ He falsely claimed “Russia is very unhappy that Trump won.” (Intelligence agencies have said — and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has confirmed — that he preferred Mr. Trump to Hillary Clinton.)
■ He mischaracterized NATO members as “delinquent” on payments to the alliance. (He is referring to a pledge each member set for spending on its own military.)
■ He falsely claimed “NATO funding was going down” before he raised the issue. (Military spending from members has been increasing since 2015.)
■ He claimed, with no evidence, that the man charged in the Manhattan truck attack in October brought in “22 relatives.” (This is not possible.)
■ He hyperbolically said immigrants arrested on suspicion of crossing the border illegally “never come back” for court dates. (Most do.)
■ He exaggerated the number of jobs the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines would bring, estimating 48,000 jobs. (A vast majority are temporary.)
■ He misleadingly claimed that “nobody would have believed” how many jobs have been added since his election. (The number added in a comparable period before his election was larger.)
■ He falsely claimed to have signed the “biggest tax cuts in the history of our country.” (Several were larger,)
■ He misleadingly claimed to have “saved our family farms from the estate tax.” (About 80 family farms and small businesses were affected.)
■ He took credit for passing the Veterans Choice Act, which he said other presidents had been trying to pass for 40 years. (It passed in 2014, though he did sign new overhauls,)
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Congressional Research Service, Billboard, The New York Times
Users browsing this forum: Trick and 70 guests