Donald Trump and US politics

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/02/25/muhammad-alis-son-reportedly-detained-at-airport-asked-twice-about-his-religion/

The son of Muhammad Ali was detained for 2 hours... dude was born in Philadelphia '~'

Besides that there is also that story about Muslim Canadians that weren't allowed to cross the border to attend the women's march. People may ague that there is nothing wrong, or that is completely necessary, but I think that the climate that is building up is a strange one to say the least.

I am eager to see how much all that will affect tourism.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Trump arbitrarily stopped immigration from seven countries without good reason. He justified it after the fact by pointing to something Obama did, but this struck me (and the various judges who looked at the case) as disingenous. ... This was clearly and evidently his attempt to make an end-run around the constitution, to implement something blatantly unconstitutional in a way that would pass constitutional muster.

Your mind has been corrupted by fake news. Every clause quoted here is false.

Well gosh, it sure is a shame that James Robart, who, as a federal judge, is someone whose opinion on the matter holds legal weight, disagrees with you.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoetillman/federal-judge-criticizes-trumps-travel-ban-and-extends-order?utm_term=.fsNDQ5pkQ9#.jxnD5xyz5W

And so does every district judge that took the case.

And so did the three-man panel on the appeals court.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html

In fact, that self-same panel, while not difinitively ruling on the subject, did note that Washington and Minnesota had offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a 'Muslim ban' as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban.

"

soneka101 wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/02/25/muhammad-alis-son-reportedly-detained-at-airport-asked-twice-about-his-religion/

The son of Muhammad Ali was detained for 2 hours... dude was born in Philadelphia '~'

Besides that there is also that story about Muslim Canadians that weren't allowed to cross the border to attend the women's march. People may ague that there is nothing wrong, or that is completely necessary, but I think that the climate that is building up is a strange one to say the least.

I am eager to see how much all that will affect tourism.

Answer: 6-8% right off the bat. Some predict it could be about as bad as 9/11. Which is kind of impressive, when you think about it - this executive order could have a similar impact on people's interest in traveling to the USA as a major terrorist attack which prominently featured airplanes!

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

1 Trump arbitrarily stopped immigration from seven countries without good reason. 2 He justified it after the fact by pointing to something Obama did, but 3 this struck me (and the various judges who looked at the case) as disingenous. ... 4 This was clearly and evidently his attempt to make an end-run around the constitution, to implement something blatantly unconstitutional in a way that would pass constitutional muster.

Your mind has been corrupted by fake news. Every clause quoted here is false.

Well gosh, it sure is a shame that James Robart, who, as a federal judge, is someone whose opinion on the matter holds legal weight, disagrees with you.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoetillman/federal-judge-criticizes-trumps-travel-ban-and-extends-order?utm_term=.fsNDQ5pkQ9#.jxnD5xyz5W

5 And so does every district judge that took the case.

And so did the three-man panel on the appeals court.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html

6 In fact, that self-same panel, while not difinitively ruling on the subject, did note that Washington and Minnesota had offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a 'Muslim ban' as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban.

Numbers mine.

1 False. 6 of the 7 are countries we've recently bombed.
2 False. He justified it during the fact by pointing to something Obama did. The EO does not list the seven countries within its own text; instead, it references a list curated by DoHS, which hasn't been edited since Obama.
3 False. The Ninth Circuit did not find such things dubious. What they did was note the evidence brought by the two states, note that legal precedent indicates such evidence can be admissible and used to show unconstitutionality under the First Amendment (which I disagree with, incidentally)... then drop the remainder of that argument entirely, relying instead on a much more sound 5th Amendment (due process) argument. It's a bizarre hanging fragment in the Ninth's opinion.
4 False. There is zero explicit reference in the EO to this. You might forward the ultimately unprovable claim that the intent of the EO was a Muslim ban, but it's anything but "clear and evident;" such a theory rests on a great many assumptions.
5 Misleading. One district judge. (Technically not a lie though.)
6 See 3 above. You're slightly closer to factual here, although it remains that the Ninth includes only an incomplete and impotent First Amendment argument in their opinion, and rely entirely upon the Fifth for their ruling.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

There's a lot here, and thank you for contributing it. Before I respond to it in full, do you consider FOX News to be "fake news" by this rubric?

Fox News is certainly capable of committing various elements that make up the "fake news" phenomenon as per my earlier blah blah.

Though, I do believe there is a distinction between Fox News/MSNBC and CNN, the latter of which has really drawn the ire of the fake news push-back crowd, and for good reason IMO.

I could go into it, but I'll just answer your question and leave it at that for now.

My apologies, Scrotie. I think I got a couple things mixed up in my head. I can tell you right now I didn't get that stuff from the media, though. I got it from forums.

"

Laurium wrote:

It's really much more than a certain vapidness that stems from a need to fill a 24 hr cycle.

For starters, "fake news" is not a literal description of what's wrong with the MSM, though certainly they can put stuff out that's outright false.

From what I observe, the term is shorthand for the confluence of various practices that these outlets execute on a daily basis which consistently violate any sort of journalistic ethics that are supposed to be adhered to.

Honestly, the term originally had a very clear meaning - it referred to (primarily online) news outlets which just blatantly made shit up. The kinds of outlets that published stories like "Pope endorses Donald Trump". I suppose that train has left the station quite a while ago, but the term is loaded, and if all we're talking about is lapses in journalistic integrity, the term is not well-suited.

When someone says "fake news", the implication is not "this news source has made some mistakes in its editorial policy", it's "this news source is fundamentally untrustworthy". I don't think this applies to any mainstream news network. Not even FOX, despite how frequently their pundits lie, despite the many egregious cases of bias, despite the leaks of internal memos that paint the channel as essentially a mouthpiece for the republican part.

It also dilutes the term (IMO, this was intentional), making it harder to call out news outlets which do fall under the original meaning. But okay, let's work with your definition.

"

The primary one, which IMO is also the most dangerous, is the seamless integration of editorializing in what is otherwise a straight news story. This happens all the time. It's not as though an anchor or field reporter on CNN stops in the middle of a report to say "I'm about to give my opinion", and then proceeds. Instead, in the same breath they switch between facts and editorial. This is doubly unethical, as on top of providing opinion there is zero corresponding attribution for whatever is about to be said.

Since we're on CNN (all of this of course applies to the big three cable news outlets), I believe their main "objective" news hour guy is still Wolf Blitzer? 2pm pacific slot?

Listen to an hour of him. He does it all the time. An example that comes to mind was last year a senate meeting I believe between Democrats and Republicans. One party declined to show for the day, and rescheduled. That's the news part. Wolf says this and in the same breath follows up saying something along the lines of "boy that party that was cancelled on must be really mad and frustrated, what gives?". Turns out, the cancellation was a procedural formality and the meeting itself was scheduled the next day. NEITHER political side was upset. But if you listened to Wolf in the moment it would reinforce whatever opinion you had about dysfunctional government/obstructionism and so on, all the while expecting to hear "the news".

I think part of the problem is that whatever news I do get from CNN comes from the website. I don't notice this stuff in the online edition. I put on Wolf Blitzer for a little while, then I turned him off. Who gave this guy a job? My complaint is not "this is biased nonsense" but more "holy shit, his voice is like a slightly louder version of Ben Stein and makes me want to take a baseball bat to my computer speakers". FWIW, 8 minutes into Blitzer's February 2 coverage which I found on Youtube, and I haven't spotted any of this. I don't doubt it happens from time to time, the question is how often, and what results from it. To me, that looks like a throwaway line, something quickly forgotten by both audiences and newscaster. It's not like, say, photoshopping political opponents' photos in your shows to make them look awful, or mislabeling the party of someone who did something really wrong or really right repeatedly, and all in favor of one party.

"

A big problem in the MSM is that they are almost never, ever, ever held accountable for anything they say.

Counterpoint: Dan Rather. Brian Williams comes to mind as well. Another case I found involved local news. It happens. It may not happen frequently enough in your eyes, but I couldn't name that many big-ticket stories that the media got dramatically wrong in recent years. At least not since the run-up to the Iraq War, and I was a bit young to follow CNN back then, so I'm not sure what happened at the time.

"

It's crazy stuff. They report Trump has hookers piss on him. Zero repercussion.

Err... not quite. I don't particularly like Red State, but as a conservative news source, I think it might hold a bit more clout around these parts. Take it away:

"There may or may not be something to the allegations presented by the intelligence community — but no matter how you slice it, the fact that the intelligence community chose to brief Trump and Obama on these issues is a legitimate story. And the fact that BuzzFeed decided to publish a bunch of unverified allegations does not mean the CNN story is garbage."

The memo is a thing that exists. There may or may not be anything to it, but CNN didn't report credulously on the memo itself - in fact, very few mainstream news articles did. It reported on the fact that the intelligence community had briefed the former and current president on the facts. That's newsworthy, IMO, because it means that the CIA and co. are taking this seriously. It might not all be just hot air. Or should I say hot water? (Someone shoot me.)

"

2nd issue which makes them "fake news" is outright false reporting based on either a preconceived narrative or from cherry picking and purposely providing zero context (another ethical violation). I watched the entire Trump news conference the other day where it was just him and the media, the one where he was basically dressing them down. Now, say what you will about his content, but of all the times he's a braggart/blowhard, this was him at his most tame. He took questions, he didn't yell at someone, no crazy arm flailing, etc. How was the conference immediately characterized upon its conclusion: "Trump's unhinged". That's objectively false.

When sources from the Telegraph to CNN to People Magazine to FOX News (fucking really) are accusing an event as being "unhinged" or "crazy", there may be something to it. And let's be clear - "the leaks are real, the news is fake" is a pretty bizarre thing to say. Spending more time at a press conference intended to introduce your nominee for SecLabor talking about the person you beat in the election and who has since pretty much disappeared off the face of the earth than your nominee for SecLabor is pretty bizarre. Repeating obvious falsehoods? Pretty bizarre. Deflecting from a question offering him an out on the issue of Russia by pointing to his poll numbers and his electoral college victory? Jeff Stein isn't coming from nowhere when he titles his article on the press conference, "
9 things it’s hard to believe the president of the United States actually just said
".

Perhaps the disconnect is that Trump is no longer some random blowhard, but President of the United States, and is thus held to a slightly different standard. And by the standard of "this is the President speaking"... Yeah, "unhinged" isn't a bad word for it.

And by the way, that thing you mentioned earlier about drawing a line between news and opinion? In the bit you're referring to, Jake Tapper actually did pretty much exactly that.

"

As for preconceived narratives, this was almost a daily occurrence on CNN during the DNC primaries. Bernie would win northeast states, but in every projection given for delegate total Tapper and King and whoever else automatically baked in super delegates and declared Bernie's win both impossible and altogether meaningless to that point, despite his showing in states that were going to be at play in the general, and despite Clinton winning irrelevant states in the South. I don't care whatsoever about Sanders, but it was clear that was no objective news reporting for months and months and months.

This is a common complaint from Sanders fans, and I just can't really agree with it. The superdelegates were a substantial barrier towards Sanders winning, and ignoring them would be even more of a bias. What's more, the point where Sanders was mathematically incapable of winning was long, long before he threw in the towel. It's not "fake news" to point that out, or to reflect that in your coverage. It's a bit of a mixed bag, honestly. Sanders got a lot less coverage, but it was overwhelmingly positive - more positive than of any other candidate.

Does this add up to "fake news"? I don't think so. I think saying that trivializes the term. I don't even know what bias you could attribute to news coverage where a candidate has considerably less coverage, but also far kinder coverage.

"

3rd issue which makes them "fake news" is the preponderance of pundits nowadays. You talk about nonsense. It's one thing to bring in a former DNC/RNC "strategist" (whatever that is) to talk about campaign strategy, but then they leave these jerkoffs on the panel to simulatenously talk about domestic politics, international relation theory, cyber concerns, the best Ben n Jerry flavor, etc.

Sensationalism might very well be a minor crime, as you say, but it ranks among the lowest concerns on the short list of why people neither trust nor have any patience anymore for these people. The term "fake news" is just a catchy label for all this nonsense. Amid all of it that's been going for many years (well before Trump came on the scene), these networks have the audacity to claim the importance of free and fair press. That's great in the abstract, but in what fantasy world are these people fair? It's a cesspool of sanctimony. That you think this only characterizes Fox News is quite a strange assumption in 2017. It's everywhere, including print.

I'll hardly defend that. This sort of pundit-oriented coverage is a problem.

"

The issue has more to do with people (westerners) not wanting to do dirty "low" jobs, rather than a real lack of manpower.

For real. There are people unemployed chronically that refuse to work in fast food, pick crops, etc. Used to be that people in hard times would take any job rather than a handout. Not anymore. The idea that these jobs are only for little brown people is a disgrace. I heard some liberals the other day on FB talking about how no one will pick the crops and they will rot in the field and it is all Trump's fault. I beg to differ. I call this entitled white people syndrome. Bigoted too. Repulsive!

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

My apologies, Scrotie. I think I got a couple things mixed up in my head. I can tell you right now I didn't get that stuff from the media, though. I got it from forums.

And where do you figure they got it from? You either got your propaganda direct or via intermediary; doesn't make much difference.

I'm wondering how many times I'll tell you primary sources first, pundits (both official and random internet) a distant second. I'm not optimistic it'll be a low number. You seem quite committed to the Catholic equivalent of reality interpretation, in contrast to Protestant self-determination.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Snip

Good on you to respond and to take up many issues on this thread with various others.

But, you strike me as a person who can’t see the forest for the trees.

To deconstruct my earlier post on the basis of countering one-off examples I threw in just to provide a little concreteness is missing the point entirely.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Counterpoint: Dan Rather. Brian Williams comes to mind as well. Another case I found involved local news. It happens. It may not happen frequently enough in your eyes, but I couldn't name that many big-ticket stories that the media got dramatically wrong in recent years. At least not since the run-up to the Iraq War, and I was a bit young to follow CNN back then, so I'm not sure what happened at the time.

This is a great example. The Dan Rather incident was in 2004. He stepped away from CBS not too long after. Between him and Williams, your counterpoint is to identify two instances of accountability in over a decade across multiple networks? Do you not see how nitpicky this is? The point isn’t that this guy should go, or that person needs a three week reprimand because of these exact words as per this linked online article time-stamped xx/xx/xxx. It also has nothing to do with frequency of occurrence “in my eyes” (you’re being snotty with that). Rather, it’s to say that there is a larger issue where the MSM is rarely held accountable for their actions. This includes content, tone, inflection, consistency, etc. It’s not contingent upon whether a story is reported “correctly” or “incorrectly”. CNN can accurately regurgitate the events of the day, but if it’s done in a consistently hateful tone with dismissive inflection because the subject is “the right wing”, over time it fuels untrustworthiness and allows an inroad for application of the “fake news” label, which Kolyaboo eloquently defines as euphemism for “bullshit”.

Again, with the CNN example. The larger point has nothing to do with delegate mathematics. It’s a simple concept of: is CNN fitting their narrative to the news, or are they fitting the news to their narrative. If you answered in your head just now for either case you should ask yourself why the hell there is a narrative in the first place from the “most trusted name in news”.

This move where you comb the archives and link back to a single YouTube or single news article is a lame exercise in notching imaginary points on the scorecard of “I am right and here’s why”. So, you found 8 benign minutes of Blitzer on Feb. 2 and conclude the larger point of editorializing daily events is ultimately dismissible. OK. Well, I guess that’s that then. If you really want to be this nitpicky, I’d remind you that there’s over 6 hours of election night coverage for each network on YouTube as well. The gradual transformation from euphoria to despair, among the faces of the “real” “fair” and “objective” journalists, as battleground states went to Trump might help you to understand why people are apt to label said networks as “fake news”.

As an aside: the Daily Kos, really? Your refutation is based on an article from eight years ago that uses the term “diaper-wearing Senator” and “prince of Family Values”. You link this article in the same paragraph you state “you don’t notice this stuff in online edition.” Are you for real? The article is at once editorializing and just downright communicating a nasty tone. Further, the title singles Fox but the article speaks of three sources, including MSNBC and some local news. Of all the nitpicking you do, and this is the article you point to? Come on, man.

I get it. I was a delegate to the NY DNC for a couple years in the 2000s from a small district. I seen all kinds of equally impassioned folks in politics. But, instead of rushing to convince yourself why I’m wrong, you should slow down and try listening to what people are actually saying.

In the end, you and I will have to agree to disagree. I believe the term “fake news” is a catchall that helps to explain why Americans no longer trust media outlets, and I believe they are fairly justified as per said outlets’ actions over the last ten+ years. You do not. And that’s OK.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

"

The issue has more to do with people (westerners) not wanting to do dirty "low" jobs, rather than a real lack of manpower.

For real. There are people unemployed chronically that refuse to work in fast food, pick crops, etc. Used to be that people in hard times would take any job rather than a handout. Not anymore. The idea that these jobs are only for little brown people is a disgrace. I heard some liberals the other day on FB talking about how no one will pick the crops and they will rot in the field and it is all Trump's fault. I beg to differ. I call this entitled white people syndrome. Bigoted too. Repulsive!

Um, unemployed black youths won't do those jobs either. But sure disparage white people.

There's a bit of a cultural issue affecting all Americans, where they don't want to work in unskilled labor. Can you blame them? There's no future in it. If I'm hiring someone to work in my investment firm or as an engineering consultant, I don't care if they spent 4 years working at McDonalds or Starbucks. It adds very little value to their application in my eyes. If I owned a restaurant I'd care, and it would help them get hired, but they'd still be earning the same income. Their future from working in that job is mostly flat, or at least is perceived in that way.

We can try to encourage more people to work by eliminating some of the unemployment/low-income benefits, and we can raise the min wage to make that flat future feel much better. But it's not going to work if places are able to hire illegals and pay them much less. In many cases if an American entering the work force is willing to do unskilled labor, they have a hard time finding employment because it costs more to hire them.

Consider how this can get sorted out via capitalism: if a company cannot fulfill its labor needs, it can raise income, benefits, incentives until it attracts enough workers, or hire illegals and/or import unskilled labor willing to work in the present environment. Our government empowers employers to take the easy road. Businesses get more profit, maybe people with purchasing power can purchase more, and people from other countries who are willing to work here surely benefit, but it's detrimental to the poor/unskilled/entry level workers and long-term unemployed already in America.

There's give and take. Decide on your priorities. If we tackle the illegal worker issue and eliminate the mass import of low skilled labor (TFW and other programs), in some cases we'll see increased automation and increased offshoring/outsourcing (the latter can be mitigated by better trade policy), but in many cases we'll see things improve. Companies will start adding incentives for taking the jobs no one wants, like offering scholarships, training programs, pathways for career progression, improved conditions, improved wages, recruiting at schools and hiring on the spot for real jobs (not unpaid interns), and so on.