The correct statement to make is: The dissemination of false news information is detrimental to our country's unity and knowledge, and those who spread false information intentionally, irresponsibly, and/or broadly are despicable and should not be empowered to do so. I don't think anyone can argue with that. THAT'S what Trump is trying to say, except that he's a) not a politically-correct person b) not eloquent c) a doofus with regard to public communication
Honestly, I do think people will argue with your first statement about false information. Namely, a lot of Trump's inner circle and a whole lot of his supporters are okay with spreading false information as intentional strategy. I'd hope we can all see and admit that, whether it's fake tragedies or made-up numbers in crowds, or completely fabricated statements on crime in the U.S., etc, etc, etc. As for "what Trump is trying to say," maybe it's Occam's razor: he is saying exactly what he and Bannon want to say and they want to divide the populace as far away from the news media as possible. You can say that's a good thing, if you hate the media. A lot of people think it's a very scary thing, because we have to get our facts somewhere, and mostly, the real journalists are reporting facts, including facts on what the President is saying and doing.
at first i thought this was total united states and i was thinking damn, thats surprisingly good for trump. then i see that its just texas and i am thinking damn, thats surprisingly sh***y for trump.
i think that there is a difference b/t news and commentary. the 5:30 major network nightly news shows or the 6:00 pbs nightly news give you "news". cnn, fox, msnbc give you "news" too, but its filtered through commentators...bill o'reilly and rachel maddow "comment" on the news. and i hate the idea of political operatives (R's or D's) sitting in on cables news commentary panels...they are there to tow the party line and nothing more...and in the case of corey lewindowsky, was still on the trump payroll when cnn hired him. rush limbaugh is not a journalist or newsman either...he is a commentator.
I never mentioned anything about raping/assaulting anyone. It was you who said that. Jump to conclusions much? I think that either your sarcasm detector is broken or my attempt at it was a failure there.
I wasn't talking about the election - you alt-right guys need to stop talking about the election - it's long over. I'm talking about being ok with what he is doing. Instead of discussing his attacks on the media, you are still talking about his margin of victory and how amazing it was he won with no support. Why can't you move on and actually discuss what's happening currently?
1. Glad you are willing to concede that there was a large portion of normal and unhappy Americans who were tired of status quo took their frustrations on the ballot box. I am willing to give the President a chance and time with his full staff before branding people as "ALT right:" 2. You and I have 2 vastly different opinions of the word support... Trump had a ton of coverage, and that coverage was solely meant to destroy his credibility...at every front. MSM did nothing to build him as a candidate. 3. not sure if your are being patronizing...but in regards to a "good path" towards the future, the left has to first respect its elected leader. President Trump was elected as the 45th president in our nations history. There have been so many on this forum that stated utter anguish and emotional distress over his victory...I am sure we all want the best for our nation. But its impossible to seek out the best if we cant even respect the one put in charge...Once the incessant whining and crying stop, I am sure we can start somewhere..
1. We agree up until you deny this history of some of his close advisors. They are scary to mainstream Americans. Period. Maybe people like Bannon will magically change, but you can't blame people for being skeptical. It would be like Obama putting radical communist party members into his cabinet in 2008 and me asking you to just calm down and give that advisor a chance. 2. Well, they gave him a ****-ton of coverage and ignored his opponents in the primaries. That's just true and it helped him more than hurt him. They didn't have to cover entire campaign rallies, uninterrupted, but they did that for him and nobody else. 3. I don't mean to be patronizing, all. Delighting in the tears of fellow citizens isn't very productive. If it feels good, go for it, but it won't help you accomplish your aims. When I saw people crying over Obama, I genuinely felt badly for not just them but for our country's divisions and lack of consensus on facts. And as for "first thing," no, not in a democracy. Trump is president and I accept that. GOP has control of the government, and it's time to earn my respect and do something to unite the country. We do NOT live in a dictatorship so I no more have to automatically respect Trump than all the right had to automatically "respect" Obama, which in large swaths they never did and still don't. Besides, Trump doesn't need respect from the left. He has substantial power and largely compliant Congress. Protests or online memes about small hands don't get in the way of that. The press doesn't get in the way of that. What gets in the way is being over-sensitive to criticism in any form. Cheers!
"They wuz easier times back when we ain't got no darn tootin' media folk all up in our crawl." "I just want to go back to pannin' for gold in simpl'r times."
How does one become so naive to profess such blanket statement about such a massive market? Can you be more specific please?
no i cant cuz its been a million years or so and yall still dont get it. im shocked so many pple still trust those mofos. one example, i dont support blm but there are prosters that dont go full r****d by clogging the streets and setting **** on fire and breaking windows. but they'll never show those guys, it doesnt fit their agenda. here's a good one
WTF... Are you talking about. Can you exercise your critical thinking skills and avoid platitudes and fish galloping? How does a b protest have anything to do with you claim about the media?
i dunno how to respond to that. i just showed you two examples. one is obvious with blm, all u have to do is look it up if you dont believe there ar erational blm protesters out there. the other is a vid of don lemon, a famous mainstream media reporter getting schooled by a sherriff about black on black crime. you're saying these aren't good examples of mainstream media being full of ****? thats not to say alternative news sources aren't full of ****. they're the same.
Dude, the media tells you what they want you to hear. Do you not think that there are stories not covered because it doesn't fit their agenda?
well chowd just made himself. wont even argue, just speaking in some weird language that i cant understand. i think he wants me to clarify what i just clarified? how do you explain 1+1=2 any further? do i use quantum physics or advanced geometry? im not a teacher so i dunno i clearly made my point. he clearly hasnt refuted it. he's doing that thing, what is it? someoen makes a valid argument and the other guy replies with "okaaaay" or "riiiiight" or espn's patented "pshh w/e klay's a better two-way guard than harden". btw the show key and peele had a perfect sketch for this, it was hiliarious. perfect example of whats going on between me and chowd a lot of americans dont trust msm. not just the "conspiracy theory" crowd. this isntanything new. where the hell have you been? u guys wanna keep trusting msm when there's tons of clear and concise info proving its bs then go ahead. all msm is owned by like 5 corporations. some of them aren't bad, but guys like don lemon are obvoius hacks.
