Media Bias

[JohnsonJones]

I am NOT a Trump supporter.  I did NOT vote for Trump.  I don't even like how Trump acts many times.  However, I am really sick of how biased the media is against Trump.  If I had the election to do over again, simply due to how biased the media is, I'd be HIGHLY tempted to vote for Trump just because of that.

Now, to the surprise of no one with half a brain, Harvard has a study showing just how biased (or could one say, being more gossip rags rather than news with journalistic integrity) the news media has been. 

Liberal CNBC's article on media bias against Trump

 

 

Quote

President Donald Trump's early days in office were subjected to almost universally negative news coverage, a Harvard study has found.

The Trump presidency is "setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president," according to the report from Thomas E. Patterson, professor of government and the press at the Harvard Kennedy School and Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.....

...."Nevertheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump's contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his presidency," he added.

I put a liberal news site there just so one can see it's not just a verification from a conservative news site.  It's actually kind of ticked me off over the past few weeks on just how much of a vendetta the media has been against Trump.

Look, I don't like Trump, but how the media has treated him actually makes me pretty sick of it, to be honest.  The study probably won't do anything to wake them up, but I sure wish it did, because, even for those like me who don't like Trump, it really hurts the media's credibility with how hard and far out in the field they've gone with their bias.  Maybe this is part of Trumps master plan to make it so, even if I have an unfavorable view of Trump, I'd support him over almost anyone the media would support these days simply because I'm sick of how much they try to control me, and would simply be rebelling against that in my own way.

For example, this entire Russian investigation...look no further than the media.  They are their own worst enemy.  That probably has more of an effect on anything I choose than some sort of slander from Russia.  The bias of the media has done FAR more to make me consider supporting Trump and some of his issues than anything that the Russians probably could do (unless, of course the Russians support NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, and other media outlets...in which case, the FBI should be investigating media ties to Russia far more than any ties Trump may have).

For me, the entire way the media has reacted has basically made me fish harder on the internet for what I would see as valid news, because of how biased they are has hurt their credibility tremendously. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I am NOT a Trump supporter.  I did NOT vote for Trump.  I don't even like how Trump acts

I was with you to this point, LOL!  

[Guest]

I think there is a time to disagree and a time to rally behind the president.

The time to disagree was during primaries and during the election.  America made its decision.

Whether we like him or not, Trump is our president.  There are some big things going on right now, crises much bigger than politics (North Korean nukes come to mind).  My personal opinion is it is time to rally behind the president and support him.

(I am not saying using the right of free speech to criticize Trump is un-American.  I am, however, saying that the degree of vitriol, obstructionism, and calls to impeach Trump, which appear far more intense than even the anti-Obama activity of a few years ago, are not what this country needs while facing the nightmare of a nuclear North Korea).

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Guest]

If you want to know my personal politics, where I think the Church has an opinion, I adopt that opinion (e.g.; abortion, religious freedom).  Where the Church is silent, I may have an opinion but I am open minded (e.g., the economy).  My opinions where the Church is silent tend to be weak and open to change.

While I am undeniably at least a little (if not more) conservative due to the above, I try to always be nice about politics (and have many good friends who are liberal).  I would certainly never get into anyone's face and scream over politics, and I feel uncomfortable when I see this going on, regardless of who is doing the screaming.

So liberals on the forum (and I know you are out there), your opinions are just fine with me!  ☺

Edited May 20, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[anatess2]

I am a Trump supporter.  BIG TIME.  Made no secret about it.  Everything he has done on the international stage has made the Philippines breathe a sigh of relief... until your stupid Congress barred our President from meeting with Trump at the White House.  So, in my opinion, I wouldn't mind ditching the entire Congress - both Dems and Repubs - and keeping Trump.

So, for you guys who take pride in saying... I'm not a Trump supporter... well, do you know what your President has accomplished in the last ~115 days?  If your news source is nothing but Mainstream Media, all you could say is... Gorsuch!  He got Gorsuch!

I stopped watching Cable TV News.  I even stopped watching Fox.  You know how I find out what's going on in the world?  Styxhexandhammer666 on youtube.  Hah hah.  Okay, I'm only half joking.  Yeah, that guy talks about anything and everything there is to talk about - national and international.  I like arguing with him - as in, he'd be rambling on for 15 minutes and I'd be talking back at my computer at him.  Hah hah.  Styx is a libertarian - yeah, fits the profile perfectly, drugs are fine, no foreign wars period, etc.  And my kids and I take a bet on whether his next video would have a shirt on under his jacket.  Hah hah.

So... for you TV watching guys... I have a suggestion.  Just stop watching/following mainstream media.  Get your news from varied sources instead.  Youtube has a whole bunch of them.  Rubin Report on youtube is a liberal outfit if you're left-leaning.  Rubin is one of the few sane liberals left.  If you want to see how far the liberal partisan politics has sunk to, go watch The Young Turks and see them side by side to Rubin.  I watch TYT like I watch comedy.  Now, Joe Rogan (yes, the MMA dude) is also a liberal guy and he has hour-long podcasts on everything and anything which has a lot of political stuff too.  Rebel Media is a good go-to.  Neither left nor right - their opinions are all common-sense type stuff.  I like Tim Pool who has a daily vlog as well - politically agnostic too - millennial guy.  Paul Joseph Watson is connected with InfoWars which is Trump-right leaning.  My kids love him.

But if you simply want to know whats happening in DC without having to watch a video... then I suggest Jamie Dupree's blog.  He's a Washington DC specialized journalist.  He has no political affiliation.  He has not voted in any election since he started covering political news just so he can maintain objectivity.

Anyway, I stopped watching mainstream news because of stupidity such as this (by the way, Morning Joe is the only kinda-conservative segment on MSNBC... the mainstream news channel that got started because of Roger Ailes who MSNBC held so many cruelly crass and ugly statements about when he died):

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

55 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

So liberals on the forum (and I know you are out there), your opinions are just fine with me!  ☺

Liberals? On this forum? Where? Whom?

LOL! 

[Guest Godless]

17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I am NOT a Trump supporter.  I did NOT vote for Trump.  I don't even like how Trump acts many times.  However, I am really sick of how biased the media is against Trump.  If I had the election to do over again, simply due to how biased the media is, I'd be HIGHLY tempted to vote for Trump just because of that.

Now, to the surprise of no one with half a brain, Harvard has a study showing just how biased (or could one say, being more gossip rags rather than news with journalistic integrity) the news media has been. 

Liberal CNBC's article on media bias against Trump

 

 

I put a liberal news site there just so one can see it's not just a verification from a conservative news site.  It's actually kind of ticked me off over the past few weeks on just how much of a vendetta the media has been against Trump.

Look, I don't like Trump, but how the media has treated him actually makes me pretty sick of it, to be honest.  The study probably won't do anything to wake them up, but I sure wish it did, because, even for those like me who don't like Trump, it really hurts the media's credibility with how hard and far out in the field they've gone with their bias.  Maybe this is part of Trumps master plan to make it so, even if I have an unfavorable view of Trump, I'd support him over almost anyone the media would support these days simply because I'm sick of how much they try to control me, and would simply be rebelling against that in my own way.

For example, this entire Russian investigation...look no further than the media.  They are their own worst enemy.  That probably has more of an effect on anything I choose than some sort of slander from Russia.  The bias of the media has done FAR more to make me consider supporting Trump and some of his issues than anything that the Russians probably could do (unless, of course the Russians support NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, and other media outlets...in which case, the FBI should be investigating media ties to Russia far more than any ties Trump may have).

For me, the entire way the media has reacted has basically made me fish harder on the internet for what I would see as valid news, because of how biased they are has hurt their credibility tremendously. 

Let me start out by saying that I in no way disagree with the assertion that there is an obvious and unfair bias against President Trump. It's no secret that Obama was the media's sweetheart (except for Fox) and that they were all-in on Hillary. It's messed up and wrong, and it's not how the media is supposed to work. Kudos to Trump for overcoming that adversity and winning the electoral college.

Having said that, I can't help feeling that accusing the media of being unfair to Trump is kinda like accusing NFL journalists of being unfair to the Cleveland Browns. Yes, the media bias is real and unfortunate, but to some degree the victims are painting the targets on their backs. Trump thought he could take on the well-oiled machine that is Washington politics, "drain the swamp", and "Make America Great Again" (whatever that means). He's learning the hard way that getting things done isn't always easy in a system of government that has checks and balances in place. He's been at war with the media since the day he announced his candidacy, and even his fellow R's in Congress seem more to tolerate him for the sake of their political agenda than to actively embrace him. He throws Twitter tantrums on a daily basis, decrying his "unfair" coverage in the media. He even had the gall to tell a group of military academy graduates that no politician in history has been treated worse than him (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinnley, and JFK might beg to differ). He consistently acts like a child, so it should come as no surprise that that's how he's treated. It'll be very interesting to see how things play out with the special counsel that's investigating the circumstances of Comey's firing (or as Trump calls it, a "witch hunt"). Professionalism counts for something in politics, and therein lies Trump's greatest weakness. Until he can put his ego aside and ignore the media, they're going to keep eating him up after every outburst. 

I know McCain isn't a very popular figure around here, but I really like what he had to say in regard to free press. 

“I hate the press, I hate you (MSNBC's Chuck Todd) especially. But the fact is, we need you. We need a free press. We must have it. It’s vital. if you want to preserve — and I am very serious now — if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press.”

8 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

I think there is a time to disagree and a time to rally behind the president.

The time to disagree was during primaries and during the election.  America made its decision.

Whether we like him or not, Trump is our president.  There are some big things going on right now, crises much bigger than politics (North Korean nukes come to mind).  My personal opinion is it is time to rally behind the president and support him.

Patriotism isn't loyalty to a person, a party, or even a government. Patriotism is loyalty to the country you call home and the things it represents. I would never presume to question the patriotism of those who support Trump. They view our nation's problems differently than I do, and I respect that. The fact that I don't like Trump means that I don't like the direction he seems to be taking our country. Yes, he's my president, and I continue to have hope that he will make good decisions (especially where N Korea is concerned). Based on what I've seen, however, I can't help but be skeptical. 

Quote

(I am not saying using the right of free speech to criticize Trump is un-American.  I am, however, saying that the degree of vitriol, obstructionism, and calls to impeach Trump, which appear far more intense than even the anti-Obama activity of a few years ago, are not what this country needs while facing the nightmare of a nuclear North Korea).

As a never-Trumper, my biggest concern about him - more so than his Mexico-funded wall (), his approach to health care, and his other domestic policies - has been his handling of foreign affairs, specifically hostile countries like N Korea. Having someone like Trump being the diplomatic and military voice of America is more than a little unsettling to me. I just can't help feeling like he's way out of his depth. I would love to be proven wrong, but so far his presidency has played out about how I expected it to. And if the allegations of treason and obstruction of justice against him and his transition team are accurate, then that absolutely needs to be addressed. For all the grief Obama got from the right, I can't think of any serious ethical complaints off the top of my head. I do, however, recall the very scandalous time that he chose to wear a tan suit.  If something like that was the worst of Trump's non-policy related transgressions, I think the media wouldn't be quite so hard on him. 

Edit: I also think it's important to note that negative press coverage and inaccurate press coverage aren't the same thing. Not saying that all of the negative coverage is accurate, but like I said, people constantly rag on the Cleveland Browns for a reason. Just sayin'.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Godless

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with much of what @Godless says; except that I do quibble with his characterization of Trump's Coast Guard remarks (when you read the whole speech, it isn't at all the pity party the media presented it to be) and I think he glosses over the stuff Obama got away with (including siccing the IRS on conservative nonprofits, running guns to Central American drug lords, catastrophic dithering over Syria, and letting Hillary take the fall for his own ineptitude during the siege at Benghazi; among others).  

That said, I do think a lot of what's coming out of the press is flat-out unfair.  This Russian thing seems to be an example:  it was OK for Clinton's foundation to accept a few million bucks from top-tier Russkies; but a few Trumpkin handshakes with the wrong people and suddenly all Hades breaks loose.  And what is this "hacking" business, really?  That the Russians exposed collaboration between HRC and the DNC at Bernie's expense?  Yeah, yeah, cyber security and all that; but this"hacked election" business, so far as I can tell, harks back to Vizzini's complaint that "you're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen".  If the Russkies had blown the story back during the Dem primary, and Bernie carried the nomination and then beat Trump in the general--would anyone on the left be complaining about Russian hacking? Of course not--half of 'em would want to know if we could resurrect the Order of Lenin and award it to the culprits.

Then again:  the line that "we need to unite behind our president" has rubbed me wrong ever since the Bush administration.  I liked Bush fine; but the notion just seemed anti-republican (small "r") to me.  We should back the President when he's right, express our disagreement when we think he's on the wrong track, and independently pursue as much of our political agenda as can reasonably be implemented under the status quo.  The only exception to the "support the President" line that I can see is for federal government employees in agencies subject to the Executive Branch--those guys need to do what their boss tells them to do and, if they disagree with it--resign their posts and join the chorus of critics from the outside. This business of the President's own employees anonymously leaking sensitive info to the press and deliberately undermining presidential directives, needs to end.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

On 5/20/2017 at 7:36 PM, Godless said:

For all the grief Obama got from the right, I can't think of any serious ethical complaints off the top of my head.

Where have you been the last eight years?

[anatess2]

On 5/20/2017 at 1:19 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

Liberals? On this forum? Where? Whom?

LOL! 

Do you know that I'm a liberal?  But no... I wouldn't call myself a liberal in the American definition of that word.

[anatess2]

On 5/20/2017 at 8:36 PM, Godless said:

As a never-Trumper, my biggest concern about him - more so than his Mexico-funded wall (), his approach to health care, and his other domestic policies - has been his handling of foreign affairs, specifically hostile countries like N Korea. Having someone like Trump being the diplomatic and military voice of America is more than a little unsettling to me. I just can't help feeling like he's way out of his depth. I would love to be proven wrong, but so far his presidency has played out about how I expected it to. And if the allegations of treason and obstruction of justice against him and his transition team are accurate, then that absolutely needs to be addressed. For all the grief Obama got from the right, I can't think of any serious ethical complaints off the top of my head. I do, however, recall the very scandalous time that he chose to wear a tan suit.  If something like that was the worst of Trump's non-policy related transgressions, I think the media wouldn't be quite so hard on him.

Now this is an interesting statement.  Coming from a nuclear-blast-zone next to North Korea, WE ARE RELIEVED TRUMP is the President.  No, we didn't like Bush, and Obama was even worse.  TRUMP IS AWESOME.

Check this out...

So, North Korea is making noises because of some internal pow-wow they are having in the Kim family that is getting international attention.  Like father, like son, when the international spotlight is on them, they start their rooster dance.  Usually, China sits on them to quiet them down.... well, unless China needs something so they use DPRK to as their pit viper in the basket.  Guess what, China needs something.  They are currently usurping Philippine land because our old administration let them have it in exchange for personal favors.  So yes, that is one of the main reasons we elected Duterte!  Duterte had no problem telling the Chinese, yep, we'll go to war if you want - even if we all will be annihilated (unless Russia or the US steps in, of course).  We, Filipinos WANT that kind of leader.  hy do you think Duterte is fighting the drug war?  Because the drugs are coming from China into our country through our government officials!  We're sick of the corruption!  We want to drain that swamp!

So, anyway, we've been begging and pleading for the US to help us with our China problem but nobody would step in.  Bush was too busy killing off heads of states in the Middle East and so is Obama.  So Duterte, even while still on the campaign trail distanced himself from the US.  If the US will not help us, maybe Russia will.  Or, at least, if we're nice to Russia, China will not go to war with us.

So, the DPRK... making noise.  Now, of course, China is covering for DPRK because that tiny country happens to be the biggest supplier of coal to China.  An energy source that the Chinese can't do without.  They can't go on an all-out trade sanctions with DPRK because of it.  In comes Trump.  You're saying that is unsettling to you... REALLY?  What did Bush and Obama do with DPRK?  Close their eyes to Chinese trade deficits so China will sit on the DPRK.  Then threaten to bomb the country to oblivion in public to make RoK and Japan feel better about it.

Trump has a domestic issue - how to bring coal miners back to work.  Well, sure, take out regulation doesn't solve that problem if nobody is buying coal... hey hey hey... we have the DPRK problem here and coal is in the picture... so Trump invited the Chinese to do some nice golf rounds at the Mar-a-Lago and ended up selling the Chinese American coal in exchange for China to put full-on sanctions on DPRK and join Japan and RoK military line on the zone.  Solve a domestic and international problem all in one.  So now you got a triumvirate sitting on DPRK - China, Japan, RoK.

Now, where does Duterte come in?  Well, this triumvirate will not last if Duterte keeps pushing to get back that land the Chinese stole from the Philippines.  So, Trump invited Duterte to the White House... BUT NO... STUPID AMERICANS HAVE TO BLOCK THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE NORTH KOREAN SOLUTION BECAUSE.... GASP... EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS!!!   MORONS.  By the way, in case you don't know... Extra-Judicial Killings is FAKE NEWS brought on by the Philippine government SWAMP.  It's as fake as Russia hacking Podesta's emails.

Hey, we're just as happy to sit by and wait for y'all to figure the stuff out while we go take our land back from the Chinese.   We can't trust you Americans to know heads versus tails on your Foreign Policy.  Trump is about the only one who SEES THE STUFF CLEARLY.

Oh... let's talk Trump's first foreign trip... it's BRILLIANT!  He wants to wipe out ISIS from the place of the planet.  What's his first stop... Saudi Arabia... you're scratching your heads right?  Well, if there's anybody who rules the roost in that Muslim world... it's the Saudi's.  They can spread terrorism and they can stop terrorism... in equal measure.  So, KSA is supposed to be this US ally... wanting some powerful seats in the UN and all that junk.  Obama, of course, bowed to the Saudi's thinking to make them super happy so they'll play nice.  Hah hah... KSA playing nice.  Good luck with that.  What they want is to be praised and adored and put on powerful international chairs... so Trump honored the guys with his very first visit.  Then he called on the KSA to fight the Islamic terrorists - yes, he said Islamic Terrorists straight to the face of the Royals - got some adulations and honors and lots of support from the KSA....

...

...

...

THEN FLEW RIGHT INTO TEL-AVIV STRAIGHT FROM THE KINGDOM!!!  Do you know that the KSA do not recognize Israel as a country???  It is so bad that if you have an Israeli stamp on your passport and you show up at a Saudi airport with it, they won't stamp your passport because it doesn't want to be seen next to an Israeli stamp because it would "legitimize' the existence of Israel?  There are no flights from KSA to Israel.  None.   A KSA airplane won't even enter Israeli airspace even just to fly through it to go anywhere... no... they have to go around that airspace because flying through it would legitimize their existence...

And here you are... TRUMP'S AIR FORCE ONE FLIES STRAIGHT FROM THE KSA TO ISRAEL...

I LOVE TRUMP!

Edited May 22, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest Godless]

33 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Where have you been the last eight years?

I mentioned ethical issues specifically, not policy. @Just_A_Guy brought up a few good ones (though I legitimately believe that Benghazi was more Hillary's mess than Obama's, and that the GOP beat that horse long after it was dead). Opposing parties will always squabble over policy. What puzzled me for the last 8 years was the constant attacks on Obama's character. I just don't think there was much of a case there, but admittedly I'm a bit biased. Ethically speaking, Obama may not have been perfect, but I think it's safe to say that Trump has raised far more ethical concerns in four months than Obama did in 8 years. Heck, I hated GWB from a policy standpoint, but he always struck me as a man of decent character despite obvious political differences. 

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Godless said:

I mentioned ethical issues specifically, not policy. @Just_A_Guy brought up a few good ones (though I legitimately believe that Benghazi was more Hillary's mess than Obama's, and that the GOP beat that horse long after it was dead). Opposing parties will always squabble over policy. What puzzled me for the last 8 years was the constant attacks on Obama's character. I just don't think there was much of a case there, but admittedly I'm a bit biased. Ethically speaking, Obama may not have been perfect, but I think it's safe to say that Trump has raised far more ethical concerns in four months than Obama did in 8 years. Heck, I hated GWB from a policy standpoint, but he always struck me as a man of decent character despite obvious political differences. 

Of course... if you're taking your news out of CNN...

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

I mentioned ethical issues specifically, not policy. @Just_A_Guy brought up a few good ones (though I legitimately believe that Benghazi was more Hillary's mess than Obama's, and that the GOP beat that horse long after it was dead). Opposing parties will always squabble over policy. What puzzled me for the last 8 years was the constant attacks on Obama's character. I just don't think there was much of a case there, but admittedly I'm a bit biased. Ethically speaking, Obama may not have been perfect, but I think it's safe to say that Trump has raised far more ethical concerns in four months than Obama did in 8 years. Heck, I hated GWB from a policy standpoint, but he always struck me as a man of decent character despite obvious political differences. 

Ethical issue: Put a man in jail for making a Youtube video to cover up the tracks of a political ally's failings.

Ethical issue: Use the IRS as a tool to persecute your political adversaries.

Ethical issue: Use "executive privilege" to protect your political allies from jail time.

Ethical issue: Continually denying you said something that we have recorded that you actually did say.  The phrase,"I think if you listen to the recording, you'll find that I didn't actually say that.  What I said was..." being said repeatedly throughout his tenure only to find that when we looked up the recording, nope, he actually did say exactly what the media indicated.

The first three are actually illegal.  But he got away with it because of media bias and political clout.  Not because he was innocent.

The last one was certainly a character flaw that caused me to lose any respect for him that I had.  It started getting lost about half-way through the campaign, when I started noticing this pattern.

[Guest Godless]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Of course... if you're taking your news out of CNN...

I'm not. I admit I don't follow the news as much as I should (though that's changed a bit since January), but when I do I typically try to avoid the major outlets, all of whom have clear biases. I've found that Reuters is usually a pretty reliable news source. They'll reference major news outlets as sources when necessary, but typically without the added editorial slant.  

[Guest Godless]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Ethical issue: Continually denying you said something that we have recorded that you actually did say.  The phrase,"I think if you listen to the recording, you'll find that I didn't actually say that.  What I said was..." being said repeatedly throughout his tenure only to find that when we looked up the recording, nope, he actually did say exactly what the media indicated.

 

The last one was certainly a character flaw that caused me to lose any respect for him that I had.  It started getting lost about half-way through the campaign, when I started noticing this pattern.

I think this describes just about any politician, unfortunately. When they say "I never said that", spoiler alert, they absolutely did. I won't sit here and make excuses for Obama doing it, but it seems like an odd character trait to single out in a politician given how it's practically second nature to a majority of them. 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Godless said:

I think this describes just about any politician, unfortunately. When they say "I never said that", spoiler alert, they absolutely did. I won't sit here and make excuses for Obama doing it, but it seems like an odd character trait to single out in a politician given how it's practically second nature to a majority of them. 

Nope.  A few certainly.  But I'd like to see an example of that with Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Trey Gowdy, and many more I could name.

I've heard Ted Cruz say that a couple of times.  And when I looked it up, he was right.  He didn't say that.  The media just twisted his words.

And to be quite honest, I don't think I ever heard Bill Clinton ever say that.  Instead, he questioned the definition of "is".  Which as a lawyer, I think that was justified.

Ronald Reagan was famous for saying it.  In his case, again, it was a question of characterization instead of an actual quote.

The thing is that, first I find it sad that we live in a world where we've simply come to expect a certain level of dishonesty from our politicians.  But that said, Obama probably has the biggest whoppers of all time.  

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

"Nothing in my gun control measures will make it any harder for you to obtain or own a gun." Which is just another way of saying,"If you like your gun, you can keep your gun."

"I never said that insurance companies wouldn't raise their premiums."

"90% of the budget deficit is due to George Bush"

"By Aug 2010, our mission in Iraq will end"

"We have not had a major scandal in my administration."

"Other countries just don't see gun violence like we see in the US."

"More young black men languish in prison than are enrolled in colleges and universities."

"Republicans have filibustered 500 pieces of legislation."

"The keystone pipeline is for oil that bypasses the US."

"The US steel industry is producing more steel than it ever was, but it just needs 1/10th as many workers to do so."  And he made a similar statement about the US Navy during a debate with Romney.

"I never called ISIS the JV team."

There's more.  The fact is that other politicians who lie are much more sparing in their lies because they were aware that lies come back to haunt you.  Obama just lied whenever it suited him without fear of consequence because he knew the media had his back and no Democrat in Congress would bother doubting him and no Republican in Congress would be taken seriously.

[BackBlast]

On 5/20/2017 at 1:00 AM, JohnsonJones said:

I am NOT a Trump supporter.  I did NOT vote for Trump.  I don't even like how Trump acts many times.  However, I am really sick of how biased the media is against Trump.  If I had the election to do over again, simply due to how biased the media is, I'd be HIGHLY tempted to vote for Trump just because of that.

Now, to the surprise of no one with half a brain, Harvard has a study showing just how biased (or could one say, being more gossip rags rather than news with journalistic integrity) the news media has been. 

Liberal CNBC's article on media bias against Trump

You can learn a lot about a man by who his enemies are.

 

The media can't really be balanced until they balance the thinking of whom they employ.  They have spent the last several decades purging "wrong thinkers" and have created a mono-culture.  Such an entity is fundamentally incapable of balance.

 

Quote

I put a liberal news site there just so one can see it's not just a verification from a conservative news site.  It's actually kind of ticked me off over the past few weeks on just how much of a vendetta the media has been against Trump.

Quote

Look, I don't like Trump, but how the media has treated him actually makes me pretty sick of it, to be honest.  The study probably won't do anything to wake them up, but I sure wish it did, because, even for those like me who don't like Trump, it really hurts the media's credibility with how hard and far out in the field they've gone with their bias.  Maybe this is part of Trumps master plan to make it so, even if I have an unfavorable view of Trump, I'd support him over almost anyone the media would support these days simply because I'm sick of how much they try to control me, and would simply be rebelling against that in my own way.

For example, this entire Russian investigation...look no further than the media.  They are their own worst enemy.  That probably has more of an effect on anything I choose than some sort of slander from Russia.  The bias of the media has done FAR more to make me consider supporting Trump and some of his issues than anything that the Russians probably could do (unless, of course the Russians support NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, and other media outlets...in which case, the FBI should be investigating media ties to Russia far more than any ties Trump may have).

For me, the entire way the media has reacted has basically made me fish harder on the internet for what I would see as valid news, because of how biased they are has hurt their credibility tremendously. 

Trump deserves some of the heat he has received, if for no other reason than he is sloppy with words and he doesn't fundamentally understand what he is up against in his opponents.  Regardless, I still bless him for throwing a monkey wrench into the heart of government that appears to be giving me a few years of peace before the consumption decree brings the end of this nation.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I'm not. I admit I don't follow the news as much as I should (though that's changed a bit since January), but when I do I typically try to avoid the major outlets, all of whom have clear biases. I've found that Reuters is usually a pretty reliable news source. They'll reference major news outlets as sources when necessary, but typically without the added editorial slant.  

Okay then.  What ethical issues in the past 4 months are you talking about?

[Just_A_Guy]

@anatess2, can you point me to a source saying Congress is preventing Duterte's visit?  All I can find is coverage of him coquettishly responding to Trump's invitation along the lines of "gee, I don't know; I'm awfully busy . . ."  Is he giving domestic Filipino news outlets a different story?

[anatess2]

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@anatess2, can you point me to a source saying Congress is preventing Duterte's visit?  All I can find is coverage of him coquettishly responding to Trump's invitation along the lines of "gee, I don't know; I'm awfully busy . . ."  Is he giving domestic Filipino news outlets a different story?

That would be silly.  Congress does not have the power to stop the President from inviting anybody in the same manner that Obama couldn't stop Netanyahu from speaking in Congress at its invitation.

Now, I have laid out many times the challenges facing the Philippines.  The UN is trying to mess with our government, China is making a mess of our government, Islamic terrorists are making a mess of our government and we still have a problem with the communists.  And that doesn't count the damage our own oligarchs have made and are continuing to make with the help of the media and the western globalists.  The US, who have been our protection from all these threats have abandoned us after Marcos left office.  We even had to fight Abbu Sayaf on our own when Obama pulled back support that Bush set up.  We're like your stupid pawns under your foreign policy whims.  Having to send our troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in their jungle fatigues to honor our allied relationship.  We elected Duterte to clean all this up!

Ok, now think of the position the current administration is in.  You think Trump is under vicious attack by the establishment/deep state/swamp/etc?  Multiply that by 10 and you just might reach Duterte's level.  He already fought off one impeachment attempt. First, everybody told us Clinton was going to win.  So Duterte distanced the Philippines from the US to take our chances with Russia.  Duterte won't survive Clinton.  So then Trump won but now the US is telling everybody that Russia made Trump President.  Your Congress and even your DoJ and the FBI are not denying the claim.  So, the safest bet for the Philippines is to keep the US at arms length and stay with Russia.

Now, Trump (who is finally making US foreign policy make sense again), reached out to Duterte via phone call, had a very productive conversation, and sent an invite.  The US State Dept did not know about it,or so they say.  Very unusual but we understand because Trump is new at this government protocol stuff.  But then a few hours later, McCain went quacking followed by the rest of the gaggle.  Now, why would Duterte, who found himself with the rare opportunity to hold something the US needs, go to the White House when the US and the UN with all the international press are still running the narrative of the Philippine equivalent of the "deep state"?  That would be STUPID.  Duterte, of course, being as shrewd as Trump is, is holding his ace card to compel Trump to do something to control the Americans and the UN.  So, Duterte, instead, accepted Putin's invite as Putin has control of China (and, as the US is stating, has Trump in his back pocket).

Do you see what kind of damage YOUR CONGRESS and your media is doing to the international community?  Trump is basically carrying your entire country on his lone shoulders, building all these bridges all around the globe while having your government and your press waging war against him.  I hate that Duterte is not as pro-America as he needs to be.  But, you guys left him with no other choice.  So, if this DPRK situation goes out of control, I am putting the blame right there in your Congress feet.

You want sources?  You'll have to watch YouTube videos in Bisaya.  Just like you can't make heads or tails on what is Real or Fake in American mainstream media, you won't be able to do so in Philippine mainstream media as well.  You'll have to go to the alternative news sources where you can find unvarnished news.  Or, you can go straight to Duterte's mouth... which is tricky because first, you'll have to understand the Bisaya culture so you can understand Duterte's Pilipino speech pattern (he is just as bad with the Pilipino language as Trump is with the English language but at least Duterte has an excuse as Pilipino is only his 3rd language).

So, you have two choices... you can believe what I'm saying or you don't.  I'm just some random gal on the internet but my posts here should show a consistent seriousness when it comes to government - domestic and foreign.

This is what they're saying in the mainstream Asian press.  You can read this and read my opinion on this thread and judge for yourself.  But yeah, to believe me, you'll have to realize that the extra-Judicial killings you are screaming about are not done by the Duterte administration.  They are done by the entrenched government officials who have been aiding drug cartels in trafficking these drugs into the country.  For example, Leila DeLima, a Senator who worked in the DoJ before that and was our human rights representative to the UN before that, had one of the drug cartel kingpins in national high security prison packaging and distributing drugs from the prison's basement.  Many of the distributors were killed to stop them from exposing the prison's operations and its connection to the government.  DeLima was convicted of the crime.  She's now screaming to the UN accusing Duterte of imprisoning a political opponent to hide his human rights offenses.

http://asianjournal.com/news/duterte-cant-promise-hell-accept-trumps-white-house-invitation/

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

That would be silly.  Congress does not have the power to stop the President from inviting anybody in the same manner that Obama couldn't stop Netanyahu from speaking in Congress at its invitation.

Anatess, thanks for the clarification.  In the future, please don't say stuff you don't mean.  Earlier in this thread you wrote:  

Quote

Everything he has done on the international stage has made the Philippines breathe a sigh of relief... until your stupid Congress barred our President from meeting with Trump at the White House.

I trust you can see how some of us may have found that confusing.

Quote

The US, who have been our protection from all these threats have abandoned us after Marcos left office.

You may well consider it an "abandonment"; but my understanding is that you guys asked the Americans to pull out of their bases in the Philippines.  I understand that there were some good reasons for this, but the bottom line is--either you want American "protection" (such as it is), or you don't; and if you tell us you don't want it, then you don't get to howl about being "abandoned" when you find out that--surprise!--other regional powers are even less altruistic than the Yankees were.  

Quote

Having to send our troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in their jungle fatigues to honor our allied relationship.

Well, and the Philippines arguably had a vested interest in a global war on terror as a means of aid against its own domestic terror issues.  My understanding is that your presence in the Near East consisted of a few dozen medics and engineers, all of whom were withdrawn a year later when terrorists kidnapped one of your guys and demanded Filipino forces pull out of Iraq in exchange for his release?  

That's certainly your prerogative; but it also signified to America that you guys were't really serious about the whole "global war on terror" thing; which sort of undercuts your argument when you suggest that the US pulling twelve hundred troops out of the Philippine jungles five years later was some sort of betrayal.  "Alliances" go both ways.

Quote

Or, you can go straight to Duterte's mouth... which is tricky because first, you'll have to understand the Bisaya culture so you can understand Duterte's Pilipino speech pattern (he is just as bad with the Pilipino language as Trump is with the English language but at least Duterte has an excuse as Pilipino is only his 3rd language).

You fall back to the language/culture barrier an awful lot in these sorts of discussions; but In what culture is it considered a good thing to compare oneself to Hitler?  In what culture or language is it a good thing to openly gloat over the death of your political enemies, and hope for the deaths of millions of drug addicts?  

Quote

So, the safest bet for the Philippines is to keep the US at arms length and stay with Russia.

Duterte can pimp his own country out to Putin to his heart's content.  But at some point he and his supporters are going to get a nasty surprise when push comes to shove and it turns out that, no, Russia isn't willing to start a land war in Asia over a Sino-Filipino border dispute.

Quote

So, if this DPRK situation goes out of control, I am putting the blame right there in your Congress feet.

I have to ask whether you even hear yourself here.  You are fundamentally saying Duterte should abandon Filipino territorial claims in favor of the Chinese, for the sake of keeping the lid on the North Korean situation for another few months in an agreement that Duterte will be stuck with, but that the Chinese and NorKos can violate with impunity at any time.  The Philippines pay the price for a deal that--if it holds--runs to the benefit of South Korea, Japan, China, and the US; but doesn't really give the Philippines anything but the illusory ego-boost of being (as they style themselves) regional power brokers.

I'll let your countrymen decide whether such a sell-out constitutes outright treason.  But speaking as a relative outsider:  It sure looks like a bad deal to me.  And, incidentally--it's the sort of exploitative scam at which Donald J. Trump excels. 

Regarding the regional situation, though, I have a better idea; in the form of a four-point plan:  

1. America sells its coal to whoever wants it, asking for nothing in return except the fair market value of the item being sold.
2. If America can't reach full employment for its coal miners, we'll teach 'em to build solar cells or nuclear power plants.
3. East Asia and the Pacific Rim sort out their own problems, probably via a regional war in which China, North Korea, and/or Japan establish hegemony and everyone else screams and snivels for the Americans to Do Something™.  We pull out the popcorn, and make out like bandits selling arms to the combatants until their funding runs out. 
4. We don't have to hear any more Filipino carping about the status quo in their region of the world.  Because the Philippines will be under Chinese vassalage, and the Chinese have excellent internet filters.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Anatess, thanks for the clarification.  In the future, please don't say stuff you don't mean.  Earlier in this thread you wrote:  

I trust you can see how some of us may have found that confusing.

It's only confusing to people who don't know the US Constitution.  The statement, in my opinion, is accurate.  Congressional statements is the reason the meeting did not take place.  McCain immediately went on the loudest microphone to prevent Duterte from setting foot in the White House.  The media can be ignored.  Schumer can be ignored as a minority.  McCain and Rubio cannot be ignored as they are majority.  If Tillerson and/or Haley would have countered the Republican statements, that would probably be enough to swing negotiations to the side of Trump, maybe.

 

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You may well consider it an "abandonment"; but my understanding is that you guys asked the Americans to pull out of their bases in the Philippines.  I understand that there were some good reasons for this, but the bottom line is--either you want American "protection" (such as it is), or you don't; and if you tell us you don't want it, then you don't get to howl about being "abandoned" when you find out that--surprise!--other regional powers are even less altruistic than the Yankees were.  

This is naive.

American bases do not need to be in the Philippines for America to honor its allied relationship with the Philippines.  The US-Philippine alliance has been in existence before World War I.  Base or no base.  The Filipinos had representation in the US Congress before you gave women a vote. 

Clark Air Base closed not because the people demanded it, they pulled out because the volcano buried it.  Before that, America was buzzing the people's coup d'etat against the illegitimate President Aquino with F16's launched from the air base.  This is pure colonial muscle-flexing especially with Marcos exiled by Reagan.  This is the message we get - America chooses who the Philippine President is going to be.  Marcos is President (or not) because Reagan says so, Aquino is President because Bush says so.  THIS is not the agreement we signed when we gained our independence from US colonial rule.  I find it funny that the US is wailing about Russia interfering in the US elections.

The Philippines did not become another Vietnam purely due to the strength of Marcos rule and the threat of the US-Philippine alliance against Russia.  Since HW Bush and with Clinton's lack luster foreign policy, through Bush and Obama's bipolar policies and the rising distrust of the Filipinos on the US-Philippine alliance... it is very naive, almost to the point of insult, to put the blame on Filipinos for this situation.  Yes, the Philippines is a 3rd world country that need alliances to remain at peace.  If the US continues to treat the Philippines like ants under their boot - complete with the naive arrogance of their people's representatives, continually attacking our duly elected President for political posturing, there's no other choice but to ally with somebody else where we have a better chance.

THE US NEEDS TO FIX THEIR FOREIGN POLICY.  TRUMP IS DOING IT.  THE REST OF THE WORLD IS RESPONDING VERY POSITIVELY.  It would be nice if he'd get some support from his own people!

 

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, and the Philippines arguably had a vested interest in a global war on terror as a means of aid against its own domestic terror issues.  My understanding is that your presence in the Near East consisted of a few dozen medics and engineers, all of whom were withdrawn a year later when terrorists kidnapped one of your guys and demanded Filipino forces pull out of Iraq in exchange for his release?  

That's certainly your prerogative; but it also signified to America that you guys were't really serious about the whole "global war on terror" thing; which sort of undercuts your argument when you suggest that the US pulling twelve hundred troops out of the Philippine jungles five years later was some sort of betrayal.  "Alliances" go both ways.

I will assume you got this information from news sources or Wikipedia which shows the lack of depth of the import of this statement.  First of all, we are fighting GLOBAL terrorism IN OUR OWN LAND.  So again... naivete, bordering on insult, to say "you guys weren't really serious about the whole global war on terror".  Terrorism in the Philippines is not just a domestic issue.  There's this movie - Act of Valor - that depicted quite an accurate route of terrorists if they were to succeed in the Philippines.  The path of terrorists to the US is not through Europe before Muslim refugee migrants became a thing in Europe.  Rather, the path is through radicalization of Muslims in Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines.

Right before the Iraq war and after 9/11, Bush elevated the Philippines to the status of non-Nato ally to tie the Philippine military directly under the American military in international affairs.  So Bush decides to wage war against Iraq (stupid) at the same time that we are fighting terrorists in our jungles (jungle fatigues, hello) and calls on our allied status for troops in addition to bringing a large number of American troops on Philippine soil as a landing spot through the Pacific (that's why the US likes us - strategic location) only a decade after the bases were supposed to be "closed".  The Philippines was, of course, opposed to the Iraq war, but because of our allied status, we swallowed our dissent and sent our people - we sent Medics and Engineers so that we can at least make the mission a humanitarian mission instead of a war mission.  But, we also pulled badly needed Special Forces out of the jungle to send to the desert.  We can't afford to equip them for desert war, of course, so we hoped the US would take care of resources.  Of course, they didn't.  The Filipinos couldn't even score desert fatigues making them absolutely useless in the war.  We were put under the command of Poland or something.

Now, there were 4,000 Filipino Offshore Workers in Iraq.  Pure civilians, of course, no involvement at all with terrorists.  The US pledged to put 250,000 Iraqis to work fixing their own country.  But no, by the time the Filipino driver got kidnapped, only 30,000 Iraqis have been hired to do the job, the rest went to American contract workers stating a distrust of Iraqi civilians.  This left Filipino workers stranded without jobs and with no means to go home.  Also by this time, countries such as Spain - a major axis in the war - have pulled out of the war followed by Honduras, Nicaragua, Singapore, and many others.  The Philippines planned to pull out taking all 4,000 civilians home with them but Colin Powell pulled a media propaganda stating on international news that the Philippines is solidly behind the war.  This made Filipinos - who are already distrustful of America and opposed to the war - angry and demand that Arroyo pull our troops out and be rewarded with an election.  Arroyo became President because her predecessor got impeached so she was still eligible to run for President (we don't have Presidential 2nd terms - 6 years and you're out).

So then the Filipino civilian driver got kidnapped.  By this time, we only had 51 troops left alive in Iraq with the Special Forces still not very effective.  Not much dent in the war would have been made with the absence of these 51 people especially when Italy was also pulling out at the same time.  But Bush/Powell put Arroyo under extreme pressure not to pull out because it will look like we are giving in to the demands of the terrorists.  That didn't stop us.  We were out of there together with Italy, bringing as many Filipino civilians home as will fit in the cargo.

Now you got the full story.

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You fall back to the language/culture barrier an awful lot in these sorts of discussions; but In what culture is it considered a good thing to compare oneself to Hitler?  In what culture or language is it a good thing to openly gloat over the death of your political enemies, and hope for the deaths of millions of drug addicts?

 

The same culture that has no problem stating Putin is a strong leader and should release Hillary's emails without a hint of a smirk.  The culture of Alpha Males that do not bow to political correctness in its casual use of SATIRE and HYPERBOLE.  Something that Betas couldn't distinguish from non-satirical/non-hyperbolic speech.  You got a bunch of these Betas in American Congress and American Media.

 

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Duterte can pimp his own country out to Putin to his heart's content.  But at some point he and his supporters are going to get a nasty surprise when push comes to shove and it turns out that, no, Russia isn't willing to start a land war in Asia over a Sino-Filipino border dispute.

Naivete.  Why would Russia wage war against China???  That is silly.  We already won that dispute in international court.  We just need China to not use that military arsenal on that land mass against us!  If we're a US ally we're an enemy of China!  We need the military base out of there!  Or, the US can play nice with China and broker some deal to guarantee they don't use it against us... which, if DPRK starts firing missiles, China must've let them off the leash, which means we're directly on the sight of fire.  So, if US won't negotiate, then we go side with Russia.  Russia is a Chinese ally more so than the US.  Which means... we're on the side of the Chinese so they won't fire against us.  Now, of course, the US can fire against us... that would be the fall of the US and there's not much any 3rd world country can do about the fallout of that.

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I have to ask whether you even hear yourself here

<snip>

I'll let you catch up on what THE REAL ISSUES are in the Pacific theater and how chess pieces including land masses, coal, DMZ, plus a psychotic leader, are being played for a power balance to strive for the goal of nobody firing a nuke at anybody or anybody starting World War III.  Apply the same awareness to the chess pieces in the Middle East and Africa.

Here are some tips:

1.)  The land mass is not some border dispute for what... farming rights?  The Philippines was happy with that land under the sea.  And the Philippines already won that territory in international court.
2.)  Coal to China is not just a capitalist enterprise.  Beef is.
3.)  We don't snivel for America to do something.  As a matter of fact, we yammer for the US and everybody else to leave us alone.  We acknowledge America can wipe out the entire planet.  We are under no illusion that America's military arsenal will not be used against us.  Or Russia's or the UK's or China's... at any of their whims even when we are completely un-involved in the fight, we just happen to be located right in the middle of it.   That's the life of a strategically located 3rd World Country.  You can sit there with your smug popcorn and arms deals.  You've been doing that for a century.
4.) Chinese vassalage, eh?  Name a country China colonized?  Now, name a country the US colonized?  The British?  The Dutch?  The Spaniards?  Weird, huh?


 

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by anatess2

[Vort]

23 hours ago, Godless said:

I think this describes just about any politician, unfortunately. When they say "I never said that", spoiler alert, they absolutely did. I won't sit here and make excuses for Obama doing it, but it seems like an odd character trait to single out in a politician given how it's practically second nature to a majority of them. 

Why do you refuse to admit that Obama is a lying scumbag? With you showing absolutely no hint of impartiality, why should anyone give your word a second thought?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On 5/22/2017 at 0:39 PM, anatess2 said:

Do you know that I'm a liberal?  But no... I wouldn't call myself a liberal in the American definition of that word.

Lol, yes, not in the American definition.