jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (64 posts)

Trump just released a transition progress report on U Tube ?

  1. ahorseback profile image45
    ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago

    Because the mainstream media is so slanted , biased and self- brainwashed  as to believe it can psychologically  alter the American mind  to its own ideological agenda !   Hey ! That's one way to discipline  the media ,   they have been so  brilliant as to believe THEY could control the outcome of a national election .     I wish Americans were collectively mature enough  boy-cot the media and make them pay for their transgressions against integrity ,accuracy , honesty and entire  first amendment !

    I hope he has his press meetings with Pravda and not CNN , CBS , Msnbc, NBC.

    We may actually hear truth spoken again.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      Pravda? Are you serious? You people scare me sometimes.

    2. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      Geez, what are you fussing about, you won didn't you? That does not mean that the President Elect is not going to be subject to scrutiny and criticism where warranted.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        I think we all saw how the media attempted to demonize one candidate and minimize the damage of information available on the other. We all heard how the media gave Hillary preferential treatment by feeding her debate questions ahead of time and attempting to imply she was ahead by a wide margin when she obviously wasn't. They have a hard hill to climb to regain our trust.

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          That is not an impartial, but common bias and opinion of the right. Trump's behavior during the campaign and his own statements as recorded has nothing to do with press favoritism. Maybe Hillary was the most judicious in her statements. She was attacked over the E-mail controversy, that contributed to her losing the election. This idea of Trump being subjected to more than deserved from the press is just another red/right herring.

          1. colorfulone profile image87
            colorfuloneposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            Its not a red herring, Cred. Wikileaks revealed a rather long list of emails with Hillary Clinton Campaign and MSM collusion.   The media covered much, much negative Trump time than they covered the damning Wikileaks emails.  But, it was enough for people to get curious and go read the mails themselves, Wikileaks was the #1 trending website before the election. 

            I watched a video of one MSM reporter saying the Wikileaks were illegal to have, but its okey for the media to read them, and they will tell you what they mean.   No kidding.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              Yes, but the Hillary loss can be contributed to the persistence of the e-mail matter in the press. So obviously the outcome was what you had been wanting. The press did that. But, I am not going to say that Trump did not earn his bad press coverage.

              As to who was unfairly treated by the press, it is just partisan bias, pure and simple.

            2. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              Spinning your wheels. The far left could care less about the truth.

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                As that is true for the far right and those that say they are neutral while being more than just a shade of Crimson.

                1. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I'm a realist.

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Honesty, L to L, everybody says that.  What is 'realist' also depends on your point of view. My realism appears to see right wing bias in your positions, and your concept of realism sees bias in my views and those of many other intelligent and left leaning posters here. So what makes you the realist, while the rest of us are so selfishly partisan?

              2. colorfulone profile image87
                colorfuloneposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                I know, it is like spinning wheels at times.  Its just that Hillary is so diabolical, corrupt and the biggest sociopathic liar I have ever had the pleasure to watch.  I'm excelling in happy she lost.

                http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13291627.jpg

                Happy Thanksgiving!

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  That is appropriate, Colorfulone, is that the fate of a free press in America?

                  If you do not fawn and placate his majesty, would you be allowed to do your job as a member of the 4th estate?

                  1. colorfulone profile image87
                    colorfuloneposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Trump said he was going to open up libel laws to make it easier for people to sue the media when they purposely go negative and out right lie.  They have committed character assassinations in unison for far too long, for example. They are an arm for the political corrupt, some of them unwittingly because they are ignorant and incompetent, IMHO.   

                    Obama repealed the media propaganda law 13603 that allows the media to lie to us legally, that needs to end.

          2. mrpopo profile image87
            mrpopoposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            "That is not an impartial, but common bias and opinion of the right."

            Do you think the media was impartial in their coverage of this election and its candidates? Because even they do not think that:

            NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/el … ditor.html
            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/busin … inton.html

            CNN:

            John King of CNN proclaimed to his huge election night audience that during the previous couple of weeks, “We were not having a reality-based conversation” given the map he had before him, showing Mr. Trump with a clear opportunity to reach the White House.

            That was an extraordinary admission; if the news media failed to present a reality-based political scenario, then it failed in performing its most fundamental function.


            MSNBC: https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/ … 6366533632

            TYT: https://youtu.be/yO4xfj0ISoY?t=1304

            CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary- … tion-2016/

            Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl … tory.html?

            These are just some of the left-leaning media outlets that have acknowledged a bias on their end.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              Yes, Professor, I still say the media was as impartial as they could be based on the information available.

              This had happened before with Dewey and Truman in 1948. It is possible that the press was blindsighted as most everyone else were using polling data that under regular circumstances was generally reliable and had predictive value. It was accurate in the Obama/Romney challenge 4 years ago, despite the fact Romney voters expected their candidate to win, regardless. So to think that just because they, as well as so many others,  got it wrong was because of some nefarious and deliberate plot to put Trump at a disadvantage is incorrect.

              The main theme of your links were that the publications lamented in the fact that they were so throughly blindsighted by events, not that they were guilty of unethical bias toward one candidate or the other.

              You should to go back to the drawing board and rework your theorem or hypothesis on this matter.

              1. mrpopo profile image87
                mrpopoposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                Oh dearest pupil, seems you forgot to do your homework. Did you even read the source material? I think that would be a fine starting point, don't you? I'm afraid skimming the sources for a theme that suits your preconceived notions won't get you a passing grade.

                Let's start with your first claim: the media was as impartial as they could be based on the information available. But did the media look at all of the information available?:

                To put it bluntly, the media missed the story. In the end, a huge number of American voters wanted something different. And although these voters shouted and screamed it, most journalists just weren’t listening.

                And although we touched down in the big red states for a few days, or interviewed some coal miners or unemployed autoworkers in the Rust Belt, we didn’t take them seriously. Or not seriously enough.

                And Trump — who called journalists scum and corrupt — alienated us so much that we couldn’t see what was before our eyes. We just kept checking our favorite prognosticating sites and feeling reassured, even though everyone knows that poll results are not votes.

                ...Journalists didn’t question the polling data when it confirmed their gut feeling that Mr. Trump could never in a million years pull it off. They portrayed Trump supporters who still believed he had a shot as being out of touch with reality. In the end, it was the other way around.

                Perhaps there would have been a deeper exploration of the forces that were propelling Mr. Trump toward victory

                ...Our theme now should be humility. We must become more impartial, not less so. We have to abandon our easy culture of tantrums and recrimination. We have to stop writing these know-it-all, 140-character sermons on social media and admit that, as a class, journalists have a shamefully limited understanding of the country we cover.

                What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand
                , and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline. Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.

                ......It wasn't an apparition, it was there the entire time. They didn't want to hear it, they didn't want to see it. When anyone even made a suggestion that Donald Trump could be president of the United States, it was their journalistic standards that were questioned. Reporters at some of the best newspapers in the word, anchors at some of the best news networks in the world, mocked Mark Halperin - not for saying that Donald Trump was going to be elected POTUS - they mocked and ridiculed him for saying there was a slight chance that Donald Trump could be elected POTUS.


                In summary, the media admit to:

                - not listening to these voters
                - not taking these voters seriously
                - falling into confirmation bias
                - not questioning polling data
                - not exploring the forces that were enabling Trump support and victories
                - having a shamefully limited understanding of the country they cover
                - not making an effort to understand these voters
                - mocking people for suggesting an alternative opinion

                Does that sound like being as impartial as they could be? Does that sound like they used all of the information available? Does that sound like they verified the information objectively?

                -------------------

                Your second claim: it is possible that they were blindsided using polling data that under regular circumstances was reliable. I'll give you partial marks here; they were blindsided. But they were blindsided by their own doing:

                You completely ignored the world that you don't know. It was a complete blindspot, and you wanted to keep it that way.

                And their failures weren't just polling failures:

                ...The misfire on Tuesday night was about a lot more than a failure in polling. It was a failure to capture the boiling anger of a large portion of the American electorate that feels left behind by a selective recovery, betrayed by trade deals that they see as threats to their jobs and disrespected by establishment Washington, Wall Street and the mainstream media.

                And that’s why the problem that surfaced on Tuesday night was much bigger than polling. It was clear that something was fundamentally broken in journalism, which has been unable to keep up with the anti-establishment mood that is turning the world upside down.


                If you can pinpoint why they were blindsided, I'll be nice and give you full marks. Hint: it's not exclusively because of flawed polling data.

                ------------------

                Your third claim: they were not guilty of unethical bias toward one candidate or the other.

                Interesting. Care to clarify these statements of 'impartiality'?:

                The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.

                It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory.


                ...The New York Times editor and others basically come to terms with the fact that they stopped being journalists over the past month and began being cheerleaders and began being people who have a conclusion that they reached and then search for facts.

                ...If your job - you thought - and Jim Rutenberg did say back in August, the NYT's job and journalist's job now was to defeat Donald Trump. The editor of the NYT confirmed that. You were trying to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump because you thought Donald Trump would be such a malignant cancer on our constitutional republic.

                1. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  The question now is, will they stop their effort to assist the powers that be in dividing this country with bias and malignant journalism or will they find a way to report fairly and honestly? I'm afraid that a few mea culpas will have little effect on their future performance.

                  1. mrpopo profile image87
                    mrpopoposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Agreed. I don't think most are doing any self-reflecting, to be honest.

                2. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 13 days ago in reply to this

                  Of course I read the material, I just came to a different conclusion than the one that you were steering toward. I resubmit for ‘extra credit’.

                  How, the did media missed the fact that swath of Trump supporters were overlooked? Yes, the media missed the story, but it was not deliberate. How do you ignore someone screaming at you? Their failure to hear those voices may be at worse negligent, but not planned and deliberate. The vast majority on BOTH SIDES of the political divide missed it. So, I don't want to hear the rightwinger’s endless whine, Ad Nauseum, about a ‘liberal media’ that it conveniently falls back upon as an excuse when things do not go their way.


                  As for the coal miners what is the scale “for being taken seriously”? How much is being taken seriously, enough,  and how much disappointment from one class of workers going to affect the outcome of the coming election? As they say, hindsight is always 20/20, right?



                  And Trump — who called journalists scum and corrupt — alienated us so much that we couldn’t see what was before our eyes.
                  --------------------------
                  Yes, it was easy to ignore the rantings of  a cowardly, narcissistic clown like Trump. (Off the Record) The journalists made the all too human mistake of not taking a man seriously who said that the Japanese internment camps during WWII was a good thing, for example.He defied refinement and the concept of evolving away from the AMERICA that we all believed that we  left in the erroneous dustbins of the past. Most of all, except for the cross burning extreme right we would have liked to have believed that we as a society has evolved, but obviously we ALL failed to recognize that there remains a lot more Philistine in the AMERICAN culture than we would like to admit.

                  The same polling data that has always been used for these elections were used this time, so why would anybody consider in advance that the polling data was inaccurate as they have been effective with little error in the past. Did anybody really consider that the unsinkable ship Titantic could and will sink if it floundered just like any other dingy?

                  Why would we have needed to check polling data? One would just as well check and see if the sun was going to rise next morning.

                  Trump, with his ridiculous persona and statements, WAS a million to one shot for everybody, who was anybody.


                  Yes, there was a lesson taught here, when someone as loathsome as Trump can do so well. I still believe what occurred in this situation was a fluke, and not the norm, otherwise we would have to condemn all polls and pollsters that have operated during this modern mass communications age.

                  For there to have been such a wave of support for Trump that was missed by all the experts, most of the supporters must have  remained silent rather than to acknowledge their support for a misogynistic, racebaiting plutocrat.

                  I don’t think that this quiet army of malcontents were visible to the naked eye. Even the most deplorable of rightwing rags, like Breitbart, was not forecasting Trump’s victory. The great clarion of the Right, Fox News, missed it

                  ------------------
                  In summary, the media admit to:

                  - not listening to these voters
                  - not taking these voters seriously
                  - falling into confirmation bias
                  - not questioning polling data
                  - not exploring the forces that were enabling Trump support and victories
                  - having a shamefully limited understanding of the country they cover
                  - not making an effort to understand these voters
                  - mocking people for suggesting an alternative opinion

                  Does that sound like being as impartial as they could be? Does that sound like they used all of the information available? Does that sound like they verified the information objectively?
                  -----------------
                  HUMAN. ERROR
                  -----------------------------
                  Your second claim: it is possible that they were blindsided using polling data that under regular circumstances was reliable. I'll give you partial marks here; they were blindsided. But they were blindsided by their own doing:

                  You completely ignored the world that you don't know. It was a complete blindspot, and you wanted to keep it that way.
                  -------------------------------
                  The polls never missed the angst of that world that they did not know before, they were polled with all the others, as they have always been and their input taken into consideration. But, if they do not communicate, you can't blame journalism for deliberately silencing them.

                  I mentioned earlier, why it was easy to blindsight a man like Trump and his campaign, if Margie Thatcher ran against Adolph Hitler, one of those candidates are going to have more trouble with credibility than the other.
                  -------------------------------------------
                  And their failures weren't just polling failures:

                  ...The misfire on Tuesday night was about a lot more than a failure in polling. It was a failure to capture the boiling anger of a large portion of the American electorate that feels left behind by a selective recovery, betrayed by trade deals that they see as threats to their jobs and disrespected by establishment Washington, Wall Street and the mainstream media.

                  And that’s why the problem that surfaced on Tuesday night was much bigger than polling. It was clear that something was fundamentally broken in journalism, which has been unable to keep up with the anti-establishment mood that is turning the world upside down.

                  If you can pinpoint why they were blindsided, I'll be nice and give you full marks. Hint: it's not exclusively because of flawed polling data.

                  ------------------
                  The lesson that I have learned is to question the validity of polling data in the future, as I never had to before.
                  ----------------------------
                  Your third claim: they were not guilty of unethical bias toward one candidate or the other.

                  Interesting. Care to clarify these statements of 'impartiality'?:
                  -------------------------------------
                  Trump created his own press coverage based on his statements during the campaign, race baiting and misogyny does not play well with most people except the deplorables of the extreme right and who cares what they think? Journalism, as well as the evolved on the left and many conservatives turned away from Trump with disgust like so much horse manure on the side of the road along with flies that followed after the stuff. Trump, himself, is to be commended for a ‘bait and switch’ that fooled them all. Clinton lost in the industrial Midwest because of their belief in Trump’s phony promises to bring buggy whip manufacturing jobs back to America.
                  ---------------------
                  The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.
                  ---------------------------------------------
                  The lesson is that journalism will need to refine its technique, allowing for the unlikely reoccurance of a Donald Trump type candidate, the rise of populism and silent majority that polling may not accurately measure. But, this the first time we have seen something like this in the modern age.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 13 days ago in reply to this

                    I personally think what they ignored the most was middle America's disgust with Washington. It is very, very hard to win if you are part of the establishment when the country, or a large percentage of it, is completely and irrevocably disgusted with business as usual.

                    It wasn't just the news media who ignored it and refused to give the benefit of even a semblance of courteous interest.

                    Edit. I forgot Donw thinks anyone not pro Hillary are a bunch of twelve year olds. Wouldn't want to disappoint him so

                    nany nany boo boo.

                  2. mrpopo profile image87
                    mrpopoposted 13 days ago in reply to this

                    lol boy, do you have a number of gems in there. 10/10 for entertainment.

                    It doesn't matter if I spoon-feed the quotes to you, does it? The media can admit to being cheerleaders, to not taking the other side seriously, to only reassuring themselves with things they wanted to hear, to mocking opposite view points, to not evaluating polls THAT THEY THEMSELVES KNEW TO NOT BE INFALLIBLE, to admitting that journalism was broken beyond faulty polling data...yet despite all of that, you somehow conclude "HUMAN. ERROR"! "Not deliberate"! "Polls always worked before!"

                    And I thought the media were cheerleaders.

                    Yes, honest mistake. The media sometimes just stop caring about journalistic integrity and just start doing their best to influence elections. It's just human nature. Unfortunate that they don't know much about human nature, or else they'd realize that their efforts had the exact opposite effect to what they intended.

                    I could point you to some of the most accurate polling that had Trump leading which was ignored or derided by the media (http://www.investors.com/tag/ibdtipp-poll/), or to individuals who predicted Trump's win months in advance (Scott Addams, Allan Lichtman), or that this has already happened very recently with polling data failing to predict Brexit (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/04/why-the- … wrong.html) - but you're only going to see the things that you want to see.

                    Only "anybody who was anybody" would consider Trump a once in a million shot. Except the people that didn't. But they're not on the scale for being taken seriously, because reasons. Is it because they disagree with you, or because they're not liberal?

                    Fitting that you make a Titanic reference. I see a few more unsinkable ships sinking in the future. You'd think, after seeing a history of infallible entities failing again and again, one would learn not to put blind faith in them.

      2. ahorseback profile image45
        ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Yea I know ..........We won , lets just let the biased  media be, right ? After all That is all the left HAS left !

        Wrong , You're supporting the  twisting of reality , the painting of the truth to fit an agenda ,  the lying , the bias ,the sensationalism ,  the prejudiced  articulation of media "fact " over reality , Why should a honest person or  media addicted culture just let it be ?

        No wonder you lost the house , senate  and the white house .

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          Can we not hope that anyone lost? I certainly hope we have all won a government, no matter how transient, which will attempt to restructure the system in such a way that it is finally back to the concept of 'of the people, by the people and for the people'.

          If we have, there will be compromise and fairness. I doubt you will cheer every move.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            Since I know Trump is the Greatest rat and phony that will harm everyone in degrees around the world. Once in awhile I will do a freak reports on Trump and give a few tips on what disgusting destruction lays ahead. Stupid is , is what stupid dose.

          2. ahorseback profile image45
            ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            I'm not sure that compromise is in order for the Trump pres.   Term limits may be ,  draining  the congressional swamp may be , executive orders to reverse the  Obama stranglehold on liberties may be !

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              Why would any sane person want to see another four years of what we saw for the last eight in the halls of congress and our White House? Are we just going to have a tug of war with each change of president? One implements programs,another tears them down while implementing others, the next follows in kind. While the congress fights back and forth, posturing for the cameras and doing no American citizen a da*n bit of good.

              The sky, according to republicans, has been falling for eight years. Now I see the left has the same chicken little complex. Do any of you on the far ends ever learn?

    3. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      Trump is a sexist, racist ignoramus and some of the media said so. That's not being biased, it's being honest, because he is those things. Trying to bully the media won't change that. The only way to stop the media calling him a sexist, racist ignoramus is for him to stop being a sexist, racist ignoramus. Problem solved.

      1. ahorseback profile image45
        ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Still swallowing that media  swill I see .

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 13 days ago in reply to this

          What is it with all the childishness? Almost every Trump supporter I've seen on this forum acts like a 12 year old. Why is that?

  2. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 2 weeks ago

    An interesting turn of events, Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua a Mexican cement company wants to help Trump build the wall.   I believe Trump will want to put American workers on the job.  America First! 

    Trump should start a presidential live stream in Florida at his Winter White House like he did at Trump Tower.

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 weeks ago

    You will have no way of knowing if you are hearing the truth because there will be no editors, sources, or fact-checkers.  There will be no one to hold his feet to the fire or make him accountable for whatever he says or does.  There will only be subcribers.  The last freedom we want to lose is freedom of the press.  You may have gotten used to only believing the information you like or agree with, but with no accountability we will never know if what we are hearing is true or false.  "Believe me" will be the only accountability you will have.

    1. ahorseback profile image45
      ahorsebackposted 13 days ago in reply to this

      And that clause  "Believe me ", you don't think , is present in the new left slanting rag media of today ?

  4. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
    Kathleen Cochranposted 13 days ago

    In the last eight years our economy recovered from the brink of disaster, we brought many of our armed forces home after 15 years of war, and millions of people had health insurance for the first time or benefited from no more pre-existing conditions. Why wouldn't we want to see more of that kind of progress?  But - we won't.

  5. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 12 days ago

    They are both Bobbleheads!  smile
    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13295063.jpg

    1. FitnezzJim profile image87
      FitnezzJimposted 9 days ago in reply to this

      If those are real, I'd like to know where I can get them.

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 9 days ago in reply to this

        I just Googled "Trump and Clinton bobbleheads" and found several outlets.  I've been thinking about ordering some, they could be worth something once they pass-on to bobblehead heaven.

  6. FitnezzJim profile image87
    FitnezzJimposted 11 days ago

    What a great idea, to use the freedom of the internet to dodge the spin of the mainstream media.  It allows those who want to seek the source to do so without having to listen to the spoon-fed versions that are so carefully prepared by the left and right mainstream media.

    Unfiltered, and unbiased data - that right there is a change worth having.  We’ll be able to look at the left version and see their spin.  We’ll be able to look at the right version and see their spin.  We’ll be able to compare to our own interpretation and maybe even recognize our own bias.

    This step is so simple that we'll wonder why we never thought to go straight to the source before.

    1. colorfulone profile image87
      colorfuloneposted 11 days ago in reply to this

      This is good.   How can it be real news without a source? 
      Thank you!   smile

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 11 days ago in reply to this

        It was declassified during the Frank Church Committee hearings in the late 1970's senate, that the CIA of the 60's had developed the term called "conspiracy theorists" to attack anyone who challenges the 'official narrative' for  people who question the JFK assassination. Of course 100's of witnesses were killed.

        That is how they can say an alternate view doesn't count, without thier own source for proof.   People can read between the lines and see through the narraitives though, but not everyone can or wants to.

        *   https://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpres … rative.pdf

 
working