Donald Trump and US politics

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

A friendly reminder, at this point, that at no point did President Obama bar FOX News, a far more clearly partisan and dishonest news network, from any of his events.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-show-obama-white-house-attacked-excluded-fox-news-channel/

"

Vhlad wrote:

Why are travel restrictions until better screening is in place, up to 90 days, from countries Obama bombed the fuck out of, destabilized, and sanctioned twisted into an immigration ban?

"

These are countries we can't even safely visit ourselves (avoid all travel alerts), many without a US/Canadian/UK embassy. There's no quid pro quo on safe travel.

"

In fact, Obama already initiated travel restrictions on anyone who has been to Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen within the last 5 years (the same 7/7 countries on Trump's list), requiring them to obtain a visa to enter the US even if they would normally be exempt. Obama also banned immigration from Iraq for 6 months in 2011 (he delayed processing until they could enact a more stringent vetting process). Bush restricted travel to the US from these same 7 countries after 911 (unanimous support from congress).

"

The MSM isn't being objective or honest about this stuff.

"

Laurium wrote:

Spoiler

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Quote, um, me:

"I wonder if anyone here would actually be interested in supporting their claim that CNN (or, for that matter, the New York Times, which was also barred from the press conference) is "fake news". And perhaps defining what the hell they mean by "fake news", because last I checked, FOX was there, and FOX is perhaps the most consistently dishonest mainstream cable news network currently on air, at least until we get the Breitbart Channel."

CNN's reporting is often vapid. I'll freely admit that.

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.

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". Third ethical violation: You think Wolf corrected himself the following day and apologized? Of course not. A big problem in the MSM is that they are almost never, ever, ever held accountable for anything they say. It's crazy stuff. They report Trump has hookers piss on him. Zero repercussion. I say "black" instead of "African American" I'm liable to be called a racist white privileged shitbag on 95% of universities.

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.

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.

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.

Rachel Maddow anchored MSNBC election night coverage. She signed off by telling the audience that this was not some terrible, terrible dream and that you haven't gone to hell.

These are the people upon which a democracy depends to remain free and prosperous? This is "real" news? No, it's something else.

"

Vhlad wrote:

@Aim_Deep,
Obviously, obviously, any process for the naturalization of illegals isn't going to disqualify them for being illegal. That would make no sense.

When people ask for a criminal background check in the context of illegal immigration, they're referring to criminal history aside from being in the country illegally.

Eventually some countries are going to reach a point where technology/automation does so much of the labor that it will be impossible to have anywhere close to full employment. Add to that a shift from economic models dependent on continuous growth to models that function without growth or even decline, and there'd be further reduction in the need for full employment (i.e. sustainability focus, building things that last/to be easily repaired, components that wear out would be modular and user-replaceable, extremely limited planned obsolescence, etc.)

In such a scenario people will need some sort of guaranteed income (or everyone works part time with massively inflated wages, or there's 1 big earner supporting multiple households). But none of that will work with open borders (it would place too much of a burden on the system). Enacting a strong border policy and elevating everyone to a high standard of living is a bit of an idealistic dream. Probably instead we'll see deliberate wars with a draft to kill off huge swaths of the poor, or full out devolve into mega slums vs. walled off affluent communities.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Yes, with the low birth rate of many US citizens, the US will need a significant influx of immigrants to keep from dying off economically.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Vhlad wrote:

Why are travel restrictions until better screening is in place, up to 90 days, from countries Obama bombed the fuck out of, destabilized, and sanctioned twisted into an immigration ban?

Actually, a Muslim ban. The reason for this is simple: because that's what they called it. Because you can't spend a year campaigning on a ban on Muslim immigration, then bring out a bill targeting majority-Muslim countries and then pretend that it's just a normal safety issue even after one of the architects of the order explicitly calls it a Muslim ban.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Vhlad wrote:

Why are travel restrictions until better screening is in place, up to 90 days, from countries Obama bombed the fuck out of, destabilized, and sanctioned twisted into an immigration ban?

Actually, a Muslim ban. The reason for this is simple: because that's what they called it. Because you can't spend a year campaigning on a ban on Muslim immigration, then bring out a bill targeting majority-Muslim countries and then pretend that it's just a normal safety issue even after one of the architects of the order explicitly calls it a Muslim ban.

So by that logic, the actual effect of the Clear Skies Act would have been clear skies; the passage of the Patriot Act enhanced patriotism; and the Affordable Care Act made healthcare more affordable. I mean, God forbid we actually look at what our politicians are actually doing, instead of simply trusting them to follow through on earlier promises!

Again, man: stop relying on secondary sources. It's not a Muslim ban (source: the order itself), even if Giuliani is among the idiots saying it is one.

"

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.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Trump arbitrarily stopped immigration from seven countries without good reason.