The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest! Even a dinner arranged for top 20 leaders in Germany is made to look sinister!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 19, 2017
He's talking about reports like "Trump and Putin Held a Second, Undisclosed, Private Conversation" in the NYT and "Trump had undisclosed hour-long meeting with Putin at G-20 summit" in The Washington Post.
IN THE COMMENTS: The first comment, by Matthew Sablan, is just perfect:
They probably just were talking about their grandkids.
Posts
247 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 247 of 247"What is rational about having a relationship with a dictatorship that hacked our election just a year ago? We should be sanctioning them, not kissing their ass."
There's still no proof the Russians hacked the election. That still appears to be nothing but the self-serving excuse of the Dems and of Hillary Clinton to explain away their loss.
As for Russia, it's better to cultivate a working relationship with another of the world's major powers than to cultivate a belligerent, adversarial relationship that could lead to...world war? Mutually beneficial friends-making is not kissing ass.
(American should kiss other countries' asses, and often, now that you bring it up.)
Nope, I can't agree with you here Cookie. Russia is not our friend. I'm not blaming the hacking of the DNC for Hillary's loss, but I won't just blow off the cyber warfare Russia perpetrated on the US either. Russia hacked into voter databases in over 39 states, don't gloss over that.
"But do you see what I mean?"
No, not entirely.
If I thought the President was saying the press shouldn't be able to criticize him I would be whole heartedly on your side, but--
I don't see any danger to the American media's freedom to print whatever they like. I also don't believe the press should be above criticism either. I think Trump has repeatedly said he doesn't mind a critical press, just stop with the fabrications and innuendo. I think he is justified in that. I also think some of the press has shown itself to be attached to and promoting an ideology which should not be their job. I think it is harming the nation in that it makes governing by a duly elected President much harder if not impossible.
I hear clearly the objections you, Chuck, and a few others raise about DJT's style. The problem I have is that the subtlety style of confronting the bad guys, think NK in particular, and Russia in general, is not working. At this point I am willing to go along with the crass and brash styling of Trump. Don't forget where his advice on these matters come from. I couldn't be happier with Mattis, Tillerson, and McMaster. These people have a whole lot more experience tha a Harvard theoretician.
As for the cozying part:
Others here have covered the actions Trump has taken that are in direct conflict with the idea he is a Putin puppet. Per your response to MichaelK, spitting on Putin isnt going to advance our agenda. Turkey is a tough one. It is in a critical geographic location. I just don't see his tyrannical side in what he has done so far.
Just so you know, there are several policy differences I have with President Trump. Chief among them is his unwillingness to show even a modicum of fiscal responsibility. We don't need another another ponzi scheme which is what I see the ACHA as.
I'll put up with your rambling if you put up with mine.
"I don't see any danger to the American media's freedom to print whatever they like. I also don't believe the press should be above criticism either. I think Trump has repeatedly said he doesn't mind a critical press, just stop with the fabrications and innuendo. I think he is justified in that."
"The Press is the enemy of the people."
That doesn't put chills down your spine? Why?
Cook said: There's still no proof the Russians hacked the election. That still appears to be nothing but the self-serving excuse of the Dems and of Hillary Clinton to explain away their loss.
As for Russia, it's better to cultivate a working relationship with another of the world's major powers than to cultivate a belligerent, adversarial relationship that could lead to...world war? Mutually beneficial friends-making is not kissing ass
I agree with Cook on both of these points.
There is no proof that the Russians interfered in the election. I refuse to use the word hack since that means something different. IF or until we have actual proof, everyone should cool their jets and stop with the hysteria.
Second. Russia may not be our BFF. May not ever be an ally. Russia, of course, just like the United States rightfully puts the interests of itself and its citizens first. That doesn't necessarily make us enemies.
You can have friends, allies, adversarial friends, adversaries, and enemies. Why do we want to go down the path of the bitter and hysterical Democrats in demonizing and trying to make an actual enemy out of Russia, which is at this point either an adversarial friend to adversary.
In fact, Russia and the United States have many common interests. Things that we can work on that would be beneficial to ourselves and to the rest of the world. Burning our bridges because the democrats are hacked off that Hillary was such a turd of a candidate seems more than foolish.
A wise businessman or politician will carefully feel out his opponent and find the areas that they can agree on while prudently keeping himself and his country in the position of advantage. It is a dance, not a jousting match.
"A wise businessman or politician will carefully feel out his opponent and find the areas that they can agree on while prudently keeping himself and his country in the position of advantage."
Yes, but who will that be?
""The Press is the enemy of the people."
That doesn't put chills down your spine? Why?"
OK Unknown, I'll play. Link to DJT saying that. Context please.
Although, I will say upfront that given the present state of affairs the American press is doing harm to the nation, and by extension the people of that nation.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!
3:48 PM · Feb 17, 2017
FAKE NEWS media =/= The Press
You are welcome.
I'm not thanking you. The MSM is not fake news, unlike Breitbart and Gateway Pundit., etc. you didn't score a point. Fail.
It hurts, doesn't it? When you get pwned?
No, because I didn't get "pawned". You did.
"The Press is the enemy of the people."
Unknown, your quote changed. Try again? Wouldn't you agree that press that is based on innuendo and slur doesn't serve the populace well? No matter which policy side we are on?
"What is rational about having a relationship with a dictatorship that hacked our election just a year ago? We should be sanctioning them, not kissing their ass."
That form of logical fallacy is known as "begging the question".
Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.
Unknown: '"The Press is the enemy of the people."
That doesn't put chills down your spine? Why?'
The press has unprecedented low credibility ratings despite solid support from grateful Democrats for whom they pimp. Every person capable of discernment recognizes the long-standing outright bias of the majority leftmedia. The NYT last endorsed a Republican for President in 1956. WaPo has never done so. The leftmedia have failed utterly to paint an accurate picture of the political/economic world for Americans. That failure has given rise to a recent atmosphere of advocacy journalism that has divided the country unnecessarily.
There's more, but the brief answers are: No chills. Because they are the enemies of the people.
Unknown51 is older. Date I say an older woman?
She does not know pwned. Which everybody familiar with early internet memes should kmow.
*waves*
Hey Inga!
Evan Thomas said the press is responsible for a 15% point Left swing in the national elections.
What's the matter with Manhattan?
Dare I say an older woman?
Dreaded autocorrect!
Good lord, Trump just said if he knew Sessions would've recused himself, he would not have hired him. The Trumps sure do tend to incriminate themselves while they're trying to obfuscate.
Too funny.
NYT's reportsTrump is warning Mueller not to delve in Trump Family finances? Ohhhhh realllllly?
Unknown: "I'm not thanking you. The MSM is not fake news...."
Insane is "in a state of mind that prevents normal perception...." One cannot perceive normally if one is fed a steady diet of progressive pap. The MSM offers a steady diet of progressive pap. It's devotees are unable to perceive normally.
For example, it is insane to suppose Russia would prefer Trump to Hillary the Grifter who was already bought and paid for.
Half mil for Bill's Moscow speeches. Uncontested.
Approval by Hillary of Uranium One. Uncontested.
Millions contributed by Russians and associates, including Uranium One founder. Uncontested.
Evidence shows Russians hacked our election. Contested, even by prominent Democrats.
Trump is a Russian asset. No evidence. Contested by word and deed.
I frankly don't see Trump kissing Putin's ass, or anything close. I would suggest that we are more adverse to them than most anytime under Obama, who essentially looked the other way when Putin stole the Crimea from the Ukraine 🇺🇦. Trump also launched missiles at Russian 🇷🇺ally Syria after it used chemical weapons, and is starting to replace Russia for sales of natural gas to our NATO allies. Indeed, our fracking boom is likely to hurt Russia as much as it does OPEC. the fracking boom that Obama tried to kill, and Crooked Hillary promised to destroy.
As I noted above, it is to our advantage for our President to have a personal relationship with the Russian leader. Their military may be much reduced from the Cold War, but they still have about as many nukes as we do, and the means to deliver them anywhere in the world in short order. We don't want them to misunderstand or underestimate our country's resolve or ability to carry out threats, but don't want them panicking (and overreacting) themselves either. Best solution is being able to pick up the phone and work things out before either side goes nuclear.
For those who worry about Trump being alone with Putin, without all their minions around, keep in mind that it is much harder to build relationships with adverse parties if you have such around. You see this with a lot of high level corporate negotiations - they only work after the aids and minions are shoed out of the room. Trump knows this, but Omama, with no real world negotiations under his belt prior to becoming President, didn't seem to.
For Kitty, etc, who worry that Trump doesn't know what he is doing, and may accidentally take us to war - welcome to the club. You now know how the rest of us felt for eight years under Obama. I don't worry as much, since, for one thing, Tillerson seems far better qualified as Sec of State than either Crooked Hillary or Lurch Kerry. The former because of her venality and willingness to sell American foreign policy to the highest bidders, and the latter because of his underwhelming lack of intellectual prowess. And, a career essentially as a government functionary, most of which was as the junior Senator from the tiny state of Mass.
Oh Hahahaha! Trump said he talked about "adoption" to Putin in that hour long dinner conversation. Like father like son, eh? Adoption! LOL!
Obama is a genius compared to Trump, get real Brucie.
Is this the story that will take down Trump, wondered exactly no people outside the radical Left.
UnknownInga51 has access to Obama's transcripts.
Link?
"Trump also launched missiles at Russian ����ally Syria after it used chemical weapons...."
There's no proof Syria used chemical weapons in Syria, either recently or in 2013. It's possible Assad was responsible for one or the other or both attacks, but there's no proof, merely allegation. And, even if Assad did use Sarin gas in Syria, Trump had no legal basis to unilaterally launch missiles into Syria in response. In doing so, Trump violated international law and committed a war crime.
Why shouldn't Russia be an ally of Syria? They are in the same region of the world. It serves them both to be allied. We were friendly with Syria when it suited us, as when we sent men captured in our war of terror there to be tortured by the Syrian government. Syria committed war crimes for us. Did we have any qualms about Assad then? Ha!
Birkel wrote: "UnknownInga51 has access to Obama's transcripts."
And has undoubtedly pondered the great body of Obama's scholarly work published in the Harvard Law Review. Although I must admit that after a good deal of searching I have been unable to find any.
That does leave me wondering, but not Unknown, who is renowned for such profundity as: "TheMSM is not fake news," and "... a dictatorship that hacked our election." (That was unknown, wasn't it?) And now, "Obama is a genius compared to Trump." LOL.
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!
3:48 PM · Feb 17, 2017
I knew there was a reason I liked that guy !
Thanks.
Trump had no legal basis to unilaterally launch missiles into Syria in response. In doing so, Trump violated international law and committed a war crime.
Cookie and his "war crimes."
Stalin had "war crimes" not Trump or Bush.
"but Omama, with no real world negotiations under his belt"
Here is one of the really big differences/divides between right and left. The theoreticians have had the upper hand in forming policy and are foaming at the mouth at their displacement.
"Stalin had 'war crimes' not Trump or Bush."
Yes, Stalin committed war crimes. So did Trump and Bush and Obama and Clinton...and LBJ and Nixon and Reagan and Bush the First. No doubt others.
I have a reason for hating them all. They're all mass murderers (and some of them are torturers).
Filled with hate, Robert Cook would have us all suffer for his utopian dream.
Yes, Birkel, I am a monster because I abhor mass murderers and mass murder committed by our country. I'm sure you would be very happy to have a Richard Speck or a Ted Bundy in the White House...as long as their politics aligned with yours.
@pacwest Thanks for the thoughtful response. Much to agree on, much to argue with. :-) I'm on a train so will only address your paragraph about the press here.
"I don't see any danger to the American media's freedom to print whatever they like." I really truly hope that you are right and I am wrong. And I think we can both agree that this is a crucial goal. I suppose you would think that I am silly to worry about this i.e. You trust Trump to go no further than his tweets. But I believe that it is the very vocal pushback from Americans to the various attacks on the MSM by Trump that play an Important role in keeping your statement true.
"I also don't believe the press should be above criticism either." I agree 100 %! Part of our freedom is the freedom of thought and the freedom of discussion and that absolutely includes the freedom to hate on and criticise the press. Absurd to think otherwise. Maybe we are conflating two separate issues: what Trump has a *right* to do (which surely is the same as every other citizen in this respect) and how we judge his performance as President. There is a horrible side to human beings - the "us versus them" mentality - which can be easily stoked by charismatic leaders. I prefer a President (of whatever political colour; this has nothing to do with party politics) to exude gravitas and to be a uniter and a defender of our fundamental rights. "Hate what the NYT says about me, agree with their right to say it" would be a great tweet.
"I think Trump has repeatedly said he doesn't mind a critical press, just stop with the fabrications and innuendo." Such an interesting statement, @pacwest! I find this a lot amongst the commenters on this blog - disagreeing not just about opinions but about the facts on the ground, so to speak. You see a president fairly pushing back against outrageous lies; I see a president who has repeatedly attacked the press in a much more exaggerated fashion than you present here. Just look at the example in this post. You think it's fair for Trump to write #fakenews because of some of the headlines, which you find cruelly exaggerated (is that a fair assessment?) I read the tweet as attacking the whole story and as such I found it an unfair criticism of the press because I thought the story was a reasonable one to report on.
@pacwest Yikes, I have more thoughts about your post to share with you!
"I also think some of the press has shown itself to be attached to and promoting an ideology which should not be their job." No, I think we disagree here on the way a free press works. I said it earlier: free press doesn't necessarily mean any one press organ is impartial. It means the freedom to pursue whatever story they like and write whatever they like (broadly). The freedom of the marketplace will then ensure that there is a plurality of views for citizens to choose from.
I mean, you only have to look at our discussion here to know that freedom of the press is the only way to go. You and I can't even agree on basic facts. So it is a fantasy to imagine there might be such a thing as an impartial all-knowing media. Journalists and editors are members of a society with views and prejudices etc. If you are right-leaning you find a conservative paper, left/leaning, a liberal one. Or not (plenty of journalists disagree with the political direction of their paper). And what is impartial anyway? As I say, you and I would totally disagree on what an impartial assessment of Trump might look like!
"I think it is harming the nation in that it makes governing by a duly elected President much harder if not impossible." I disagree, on two fronts. Firstly, I think a rigorous critical press is crucial in a democracy as it is part of how we hold elected officials and others in power accountable. I am far too cynical about what people would get away with in all sorts of ways to trust them to do the right thing if no one was looking for a good story. So a critical press giving those in power a hard time does not damage the nation; it strengthens it.
Secondly, dealing with a critical press is an unavoidable part of being President (or in any public role in government). Yes, a critical press must be very irritating/annoying/frustrating. But it's very much part of the job description. There's no version of being President of the United States that would involve a press that was mostly sycophantic. That's the authoritarian version (see press in Russia), and doesn't jibe with American values. If Trump finds governing with a critical press difficult, then that's on him because, again, that's part of the job description. (To use an analogy you might like, I've heard people defend Hillary's campaign and her performance in the election by pointing out that some coverage was sexist; but others retorted - correctly imo - that a sexist culture is (sadly) part of the situation, so dealing with this and countering this somehow was part of her job. If she was weakened by that, then she was not doing her job well.)
To sum up: the job of a free press *is* pretty much to make the government's life more difficult, on our behalf so that ultimately they do a better job for us, by eg having to defend their ideas rigorously and by having to stay "clean" etc
KittyM
I sure am glad you were posting about Obama's threat to a free press because of his charismatic leadership - regardless of politics. And think of all the press did to make his life more difficult, like taking his picture with halos behind him. (Google it.)
Your faux non-partisanship is transparently an affect.
The number 13. Boo!!
… the job of a free press *is* pretty much to make the government's life more difficult, on our behalf so that ultimately they do a better job for us …
That’s supposed to be the job, alright. But not, apparently, when the “government” is headed by a far-Left POTUS. It was an Obama/MSM lovefest his entire 8 years. The MSM shit-storms are expressly reserved for rightwing politicians.
There is very little “free press” left in this nation, unless you mean “free” to fuck the non-Lefty politician every chance they get.
"There's no version of being President of the United States that would involve a press that was mostly sycophantic."
I would argue that the period from 2009 through 2016 would indicate otherwise; press coverage of Obama was quite sycophantic, IMO.
@Birkel I'm honestly not trying to be "faux non-partisan". What is that even? I'm trying to think through some of these issues by expressing my views and 'testing' them against what others have to say. Isn't that what these kind of communities are for? I always admire Prof. Althouse best when she seems to be working out what her own thoughts are by blogging.
@grackel @Paco Wové Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not either/or, both can be true: that the press was too sycophantic when Obama was president and that Trump is too hostile towards the press now. In general, I don't follow the logic of countering an argument about Trump with a statement or claim about Obama. Obama is history. The discussion here is about the politics of today.
@grackel "There is very little “free press” left in this nation, unless you mean “free” to fuck the non-Lefty politician every chance they get." I discussed this with @pacwest above. "Free press" means the freedom to pursue the stories they like and publish what they like. In a free society, anyone can publish a magazine or blog or newspaper or make a podcast etc. etc. You and I exchanging our very differing views on this very blog is proof that we live with a free press today. Also, it's weird that on this blog lots of people are worried about the left wing press dominating the news and on other blogs everyone is worried about the right wing press doing the same thing!
KittyM, Always good to see new commenters here, particularly when they seem to be the sort who are disinclined to shout. May I ask, did you never have the sense, during Mr Obama's tenure, that the major organs of the press, the mainstream mass media, were rather sycophantic? I reckon that I disagree with you that we can discuss "the politics of today" without reference to the larger political and media context in which it happens. But I stay away from the explicitly political threads here, for the most part.
KittyM: Part of our freedom is the freedom of thought and the freedom of discussion and that absolutely includes the freedom to hate on and criticise the press. Absurd to think otherwise. Maybe we are conflating two separate issues: what Trump has a *right* to do (which surely is the same as every other citizen in this respect) and how we judge his performance as President.
No, "we" are not conflating these. This is just so much bafflegab, Kitty. *You* find Trump's calling out the press "un-presidential", and *you* are taking that into account in *your* negative judgment of performance. *I*, for example, believe the press has the right to publish what it pleases, short of libel, and *I* judge its performance based on how it uses that necessary freedom, but I do not assume that *you* are conflating these two separate categories because our judgments about performance differ.
You give a lot of nebulous justifications for your discomfort with Trump's attacks, but provide no evidence that Trump's tweeting is in any way moving toward the "authoritarian" suppression of the press you claim to fear. "Erdogan and Putin criticize the press, and so does Trump, therefore Trump is going to start treating journalists just like Erdogan and Putin do" is neither a logically sound nor an emotively persuasive syllogism. (I'm trying to avoid tu quoque mode here, but your belief that there is something unprecedented or unusual in a president's calling out the press is simply uninformed.)
I think you're operating on a mental model of the press that does not exist in reality.
There's no version of being President of the United States that would involve a press that was mostly sycophantic.
Straw man. No one, including Trump, is demanding a sycophantic press. You are merely repeating the msm's own self-serving propaganda here.
That's the authoritarian version (see press in Russia), and doesn't jibe with American values.
This is pure cant, Kitty. Sycophancy toward any node of power doesn't "jibe with American values". You seem to recognize ("see press in Russia") that "the press" can serve the ends of power, but don't seem to be able to generalize from that point. An entity doesn't have to have ".gov" in its url to be either powerful or abusive of its power. (There is very little political diversity among journalists in the mainstream U.S. press today. They are, what, 90% Democrats?) You seem to have a hard time wrapping your head around the fact that the establishment media represent very powerful interests that need every bit as much pushback as high-ranking government officials do.
"I don't follow the logic of countering an argument about Trump with a statement or claim about Obama"
It wasn't a claim about Obama. It was a claim about the state of the majority of the mainstream press during Obama's tenure in office, because you had said "There's no version of being President of the United States that would involve a press that was mostly sycophantic", and several of us provided what we consider evidence of the contrary.
"Trump is too hostile towards the press now."
I don't see that Trump owes the press anything. His behavior gives me many, many occasions to roll my eyes and wish he'd just shut up, but I don't see anything that he's done that I see as a threat to the 1st Amendment. YMMV, as they say.
KittyM,
What I meant by "faux non-partisanship" is that I decided immediately that you are a concern troll.
Kitty,
Since the thread is old and near dead I'll keep this short. I echo Angel-Dyne and others above.
Obama/Trump: Politics aside, you do see the difference in the press coverage between the two I hope?
Free press: A press that is bound by an ideology is not free. They are 'bound'. We the people expect better. We deserve better.
@Angel-Dyne Thanks for your answer. You make a very good point about the way I used the first person plural in my post, for which I apologise. I did it more to be friendly and inclusive, I didn't mean to imply that I was talking for everyone. I'll try and be more confident and speak for myself more in the future.
I know a lot first hand about journalism so I'll have to disagree with you about whether I am "operating on a mental model of the press that does not exist in reality". You're right that I didn't give evidence to back up my claim that Trump's presidency is a danger to the free press. I hope you're right and I'm wrong. (But as I said earlier, I think that part of keeping you right and me wrong is people like me being "overly" worried).
Disagree that "the establishment media represent very powerful interests that need *every bit as much* pushback as high-ranking government officials do" because one is the media and the other is the government. Which is governing. By definition has more power.
@Marc Puckett @pacwest @Paco Wové
Thank you so much for the discussion, I really enjoyed it. I'd like to end on a note of agreement:
"May I ask, did you never have the sense, during Mr Obama's tenure, that the major organs of the press, the mainstream mass media, were rather sycophantic?"
"Obama/Trump: Politics aside, you do see the difference in the press coverage between the two I hope?"
I do. I do see the difference and yes, I agree with you both, I did think the mainstream press were much too sycophantic to Obama.
Post a Comment