Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 415 Fun & Games
- 111 BA Predictor Threads
- 34 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 299 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 117 Current West Ham
- 200 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 12 PL2 & Academy
- 32 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 27 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 401 Match Threads
- 72 MOTM
- 9 West Ham Nostalgia
- 35 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 121 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 270 Other Teams & Matches
- 26 Other Players & Staff
Comments
But what you are doing is so important.
It seems to me that he sees the media (or at least an unbiased media, interested in the facts, and unaccountable to him) as a threat.
So he is trying to neutralise that threat by both discrediting and marginalising such media.
He is trying to disempower the reputable media, manipulate the news, and embed a worldview that facts are irrelevant, anyone who disagrees is lying, and the truth what he says it is.
That, imo, is why the first presser of his newly appointed Press Secretary took no questions, and made claims that were easily disproved. And why he is (apparently) considering removing credentials from reputable media outlets, or those that are critical, and inviting selected 'bloggers,' sycophants and non-mainstream to be part of the press corps.
Nailed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.646d85f05c7b
Many elements of the liberal media will do and say anything to create controversy and confusion. Unfortunately Trump bites at much of the proverbial taking the focus off the issues which the media cannot defend.
TV Media hosts are interviewing with an obvious axe to grind, they are not interested in any way to learn, what, how, or if, they simply fish for new controversial headlines and call it investigative reporting.
Time will tell, Trump may very well turn out to be a breath of fresh air, certainly beats 4 more years of Obamas failed domestic and foreign policies.
Social media has allowed them to increase the flow of 'info' but completely control what that consists of and prevent it being questioned.
Is that 'a breath of fresh air' in your view?
Traditionally Presidents would appear professional to avoid providing too many psychological reads to potential adversaries. As president you never know when a bay of pigs will arise. Once Obama gave his game away with regard Russia they just went for it, their aims will now have shifted from sphere of influence for now to sanctions removal. They will recognise Trump as a narcissist and so will be sure to make him feel good about himself and treat him as an intelligent person who is coming up with the ideas they wish him to move forward with, give him something early so he can gain approval at home for striking a rapport with you that gains him reward, let him feel you trust him and then seek your aim, he will not want to refuse you and will create a context to give you what you want.
To fair however him behaving professionally so as not to reveal his personal make up too soon is pretty pointless when you have appeared on the apprentice. Putin is still putting on re runs, looking at Lavrov and going 'really' whilst chuckling.
We agree on the inauguration attendance, its a non issue, funny that the media brought it up in the first place ;hmm maybe to get a reaction?
Funny they stirred people up by claiming the bust of MLK had been removed when it hadn't, are they blind or just trying to make up a good story "Alternative Fact" it was retracted but was already out there and shared 1,000's of times I am sure the retraction was shared just as many times "NOT"
Feghouli's red against Utd was retracted but we still played with 10 for 75 minutes. Damage already done.
It appears to me that Trump and his supporters choose to change the subject rather than answer any of the questions posed.
Controlling and Criticizing the press, indicating their will be punishment for stories they don't like...
Next step he will be pointing fingers at minorities, telling people it will all be ok if we can get rid of them, O wait a minute his done that already...
"If you say is fast enough"
The issue itself should be irrelevant, but the fact that Trump feels it's OK to pull a number out of his POTUS and declare it with no supporting evidence, and the fact that his press secretary deliberately provided a distorted figure is NOT irrelevant. Nor is it irrelevant that in the 'land of the free' the first day of the presidency should involve threatening the press, and making false statements about their actions and intentions.
Nor is it it irrelevant that despite your forensic examination of Obama and Clinton, you are prepared to give Trump a pass at every turn.
Well, the media have to 'bring things up' It's called reporting what has happened. No, They REPORTED what a journalist who was in the room had tweeted. They didn't make anything up.
A retraction was made, more than once.
So the TRUE fact is out there for anyone who wants to look for it.
That is very different from attempting to continue to lie about it. Which is what Trump's team did, did again, and continue to defend (rather than retract with an apology).
----
My understanding (now) is that you posted the article because you are arguing that two wrongs make a right. ;hmm
Latest thing: the tax returns.
He promised over and over again, to release them when they were no longer 'under audit*'. Now it has been confirmed that he won't.
When pressed and questioned about this broken promise (let's be generous and call it a change of heart rather than a calculated lie), his representative said 'people don't care'. Basically saying he's elected now, so let's change the subject.
*Note: there was never any evidence that they were 'under audit' apart from his say-so. And even if they were , he could still have released them
Keep up the good work Outcast. ;ok
"No, They REPORTED what a journalist who was in the room had tweeted."
Mrs G this strikes at the heart of my argument, a biased reporter posts without confirming the facts and the gang of wolves chew at the meat republishing again without confirming. But of course they did not post the news they posted that someone else posted the news. This is transparent & biased.
Mrs G we do agree on the attendance issue, I do not understand the motivation for saying so, so cannot defend why it was said, stupid imo, as i said it just diverts attention from the facts & will be regurgitated again and again by the media when it has no relevance to the main agenda,
As for Obama and Clinton they have allot to answer for, Trump has been in office for 2 days.
As for Tax returns they are obviously not relevant to the general public, if they were he would not be President. Just another piece of meat for the press to chew on. I don't blame him for keeping them private.
He was (in relation to tax data, anyway) voted for on the basis of a promise which he has now reneged on.
Will you say, about any other promises he breaks - well it's an issue that doesn't matter to the public, if it did they wouldn't have voted for him?
Apparently, the original tweet was NEVER covered in the media before the correction was issued.
The 'correction' tweet was made within an hour of the first one. No media picked it up during that time.
All press coverage of the story mentioned BOTH tweets, ie the wrong story about the bust removal, and the subsequent hoo-ha.
The story was given legs by Spicer and Trump.
They promoted the story because it serves their agenda.
So, what does that do to the heart of your argument again?
I think that for someone in such a public office, they should be audited and a summary report given to a responsible ethics committee to ensure Compliance with all laws and that any potential conflicts of interest can be adequately addressed.
The releasing of tax returns has become routine but for someone like Trump, I refuse to believe that there is anything actually illegal within them but I would not expect them to be straight forward and If he did release them, I fear that it would create a media feeding frenzy that would eclipse all prior feeding frenzy's
I get that he promised to release them and it now looks like he is going to renage in that promise, but is that just yet another example of poor judgement, he should have foreseen the firestorm and just come right out and said that he will not release his returns publicly but will present them to the so and so and such and such ethics committee for an independent review by White House and RNC representatives, he was after all the nominee of the RNC.
There may be a good argument for not doing so, but then I think Trump and/or his team should have made that case.
To say, effectively, 'Yeah, yeah in a minute, in a minute, soon, not just yet, but soon; nah not going to bother' is, imo, wrong on a number of levels.
Instead offers alternative perspective - talking about in person and online.
:
Offers no evidence for online viewing figures, but a challenge: “I’d love to see any information that proves that otherwise... "
So, #newtruth
It's true unless you can prove it wrong.
Remind anybody of this?
The counter argument was made that when Trump took office yesterday, the unemployment rate has been almost halved to a very low 4.7%, because so many people have actually found work during Obamas watch.
Ding ding round two
#TeamTrump went head to head on the numbers.
They lied.
Then moved the goalposts.
Then prevaricated.