Hmmmm, I just read Trump has revoked The Washington Post’s press credentials.
Nope, not an authoritarian at all.
He’s clearly “so strong” on the constitution.
Now seth Meyers has banned Trump in solidarity with WaPo the Bezos run organization who hates Trump.
We are seeing a coalesing of media, entertainment and US elites against Trump. I think deep down they’re deeply worried this attack will just increase his voter base tremendously.
I’m at the point where basically everything negative said about this man has to be seen with deep skepticism.
They were. Too bad Trump is wasting the opportunity by being… well, himself.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/16/trump_vows_to_go_it_alone_130902.html
Based off your inability to back up anything you say, that is how everybody is now approaching anything you say.
Definitely not an authoritarian…
1 Like
Busy at work today to write full responses. Keep in mind 90%+ written about Trump by the media is NEGATIVE.
Posting a a search results by news outlets that absolutely despise him is not proof of anything.
Ya, it’s just:
The Washington Post,
The New York Times,
The Wall Street Journal,
Business Insider,
Reuters,
The Federalist,
CNBC, and
Time
On the first page of results…
This is a completely made up statistic.
Not calling you a leftist, but I love when they use Old Testament scripture to play the moral equivalence game. They leave out that entire Jesus guy and his commandment. The Old Testament is not the law of Christians. Christ brought about a new law and a new covenant.
It doesn’t particularly matter if the media coverage is negative or not–what matters is the substance of the analysis. You can say that the media is biased–because they certainly have been and are in many ways. However, that does not free you from having to confront the actual analysis that the people published in these outlets are putting forth. You can’t use “guilt by association” as a reasoning strategy.
1 Like
Go read what theraj said about the Koran. It was a direct reaction to that.
I’m well aware of that Jesus, lol…
I know you are, and what you meant when you posted that. It just reminded me of discussions I have had with atheists regarding “The Old Law.”
1 Like
As a prominent Repubican foreign policy expert writes, “Instead of an expression of liberty, the Trump phenomenon is a threat to it. … Disabling his authoritarianism should outweigh the GOP’s desire to defeat Hillary Clinton.”
Considering the complete and utter dumpster fire that is your understanding of macro economics 101, I’m calling bullshit.
1 Like
You certainly would be. I don’t know where you get off on grading someone on a subject that you don’t have a rudimentary grasp of yourself.
What I meant by that is they intentionally distort the facts, selectively choose which facts to present in order to make Trump look as negative as possible, no matter the actual truth. I will give 2 examples, one long one short.
Short: How many people think Trump has gone personally bankrupt versus having business ventures going bankrupt? How well has the MSM been in explaining this very important difference and why it matters?
Long: On illegal immigration Donald Trump said:
Ignore the troll at the end of the video.
So not all Mexicans, not even all illegal Mexicans but a subset of illegal immigrants (“some I assume are good people”) .
Now let’s look at how it was reported.
NY Times:
No a subset of illegal Mexican immigrants
Huffington Post:
now it’s ALL latino immigrants legal or illegal.
Washington Post
Now it’s all Mexicans
Time Magazine:
Associated Press
LA Times
Fortune
Hollywood Reporter
ugh… it goes on and on like this
CBS News
So I just finished reading this study.
I don’t disagree that he’s received plenty of positive coverage on “horse race” stories but I’m interested in how his stances are portrayed and to a lesser extent his personal qualities. According to this study a whopping 12% of his coverage was dedicated to his stances and 6% of his personal qualities.
[quote]
Moreover, not everything that was said about Trump’s personal characteristics and issue positions was negative in tone. Over 40 percent of it was positive in tone, often in the form of statements by voters who agreed with his policy positions or liked his personal style. A Washington Post piece, for example, quoted a Trump supporter as saying, “When Trump talks, it may not be presented in a pristine, PC way, but . . . [h]e’s saying what needs to be said.”[11] Immigration was the issue that worked most clearly in Trump’s favor. Although news coverage of his position included criticisms, it was accompanied by statements of solidarity from Republicans [/quote]
So his personality and stances are portrayed negative 60% of the time and positive or neutral 40% of the time (they lump positive and neutral statements together). And it comes in the form of interviewed voters and other members of the Republican party. Not members of the MSM and that’s what I’m trying to say. The other aspect this study doesn’t touch is the great intellectual laziness at best, conspiring at worst the MSM engages in when presenting Trump’s issues, stances and statements.
edit: where is that 57% number in the article located in the study? I can’t find it.