Why is it a problem that Trump attacks the press?

Author: dylancatlow ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 61
  • dylancatlow
    dylancatlow avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 91
    0
    0
    3
    dylancatlow avatar
    dylancatlow
    How can Trump be expected to say that the press are anything more than a bunch of liars when they have spent the last two plus years relentlessly attacking his character, every one of his policy proposals, and essentially everything he has ever said or done? He's treated in the media like a circus freak whose "talent" is that he can't say anything true or do anything right. If he's not the completely dishonest buffoon he's presented as by the media, then they are the dishonest ones, given their hysterical degree of opposition. And since no person (let alone president) is going to admit to being a circus freak buffoon, what option is there really but to turn it back on the media? It would be downright illogical (and also out of character) for Trump to show or encourage respect for an extremely hostile media.

    There is nothing "scary" about verbal attacks on the media by a president, unless one thinks it's "scary" that someone would be elected president who the press finds this awful. If the press are indeed failing at their jobs, then Trump is right to go after them, and in doing so is upholding the principle that a distinction exists between a genuine press, which is an asset to any democracy, and a dishonest press, which might as well not exist at all. For those who believe that citizens of a democracy would benefit from an honest press, a press which specializes in misleading the public while claiming to be tirelessly seeking the objective truth can fairly be described as "the enemy of the people".
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,394
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    It's scary because he says fake news is the enemy of the people.

    Who gets to decide what is fake news?
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 860
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    A third option would've been for him to accept the criticisms with grace, and perhaps give out reasonings for specific unpopular decisions or policies. Instead of, you know, lashing out like a baboon and giving credence to the media's claims.

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,394
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @dustryder
    You're a racist. Accept it with grace.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Greyparrot
    Lol. If he does, then he confirms he is racist. A graceful racist, but one none-the-less.

    Who gets to decide what is fake news?
    The one with empirical evidence that the news is fake.

    The "news" said,

    Trump would lose
    The economy would tank if he won
    The stock market would crash if he won
    He would raise taxes on the poor
    He had colluded with Russia
    Unemployment would increase
    Wages would go down
    He would not keep his campaign promises
    He was a racist
    His presidency would be a disaster

    Not a single one of these things the media breathlessly reported was true. For liberals, journalists are incapable of being wrong or of breaking the law. Or, the law doesn't apply to them. We know better.

    The media is mostly fake news. That is an empirical fact.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 860
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @ethang5
    Is that really fake news? To me, fake news is, or at the very least should be news that is nonfactual but is reported as factual. Those topics seem more like subjective opinion pieces to me. And hopefully we can agree that he, his candidacy and his presidency have been marred with enough controversies that negative opinion is hardly unwarranted or a surprise.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @dustryder
    Is that really fake news? To me, fake news is, or at the very least should be news that is nonfactual but is reported as factual.
    Exactly. Did you watch the election coverage? That is why all the liberals were so shocked. The fake news reported it all as fact.

    Those topics seem more like subjective opinion pieces to me.
    Exactly! They report opinion as fact. And the opinion is biased, not based on facts, but on an irrational hatred.

    And hopefully we can agree that he, his candidacy and his presidency have been marred with enough controversies that negative opinion is hardly unwarranted or a surprise.
    Untrue. First, it was the media who stirred up fake controversies. For example, where is the collusion? And the negative opinions preceded his presidency. That you can say this now is a perfect example of the fake news.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 860
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @ethang5
    How does one report opinion as fact? For example, reporting on speculative future events can only ever be thought of as opinion, such as the crashing of the stock markets. Perhaps you could give me a concrete case in the context of one of your examples?

    There are multiple examples of what I would consider controversy in the current administration. For example,

    Nepotism
    Suitability of multiple employees/nominations
    Hypocrisy in regards to Obama and his golfing
    Stormy Daniels
    His tax returns
    Compliance with the emoluents clause
    James Comey
    Family separation
    "Shithole countries"
    Access hollywood tapes


    Were these events controversal? In what manner are they fake?
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    How does one report opinion as fact?
    Remember Judge Kavenaugh? CNN reported he was guilty of sexual assault. That was a lie. It was their opinion, but told their viewers it was an actual fact.

    For example, reporting on speculative future events can only ever be thought of as opinion, such as the crashing of the stock markets.
    You would think so right? But with Russia collusion, the fake news was already talking about whether Trump would only be impeached or also face jail time. For them, the collusion was an established fact.

    Perhaps you could give me a concrete case in the context of one of your examples?
    Kavenaugh, Russia Collusion, or the pre-election numbers. Where did the fake news get those numbers that showed Hillery winning by double digits? Those weren't mistakes, they were lies.

    There are multiple examples of what I would consider controversy in the current administration.
    Sure. You would, because you follow the fake news like a good liberal. We know better. We know, for example, that the list Trump used to exclude citizens from 7 countries from entering the US was an Obama list. The fake news didn't report that, and you were swept away in the "controversy", but when it went to the supreme court, we saw it was a made up controversy, fake news. The supreme court ruled that Trump had acted legally.

    For example,

    Nepotism - made up controversy.

    Suitability of multiple employees/nominations - whether a hire is suitable or not is an opinion. Who made your opinion a controversy?

    Hypocrisy in regards to Obama and his golfing - so you think it was a controversy. I never heard of it.

    Stormy Daniels - made up controversy. Where is she now?
     
    His tax returns - How is it a controversy? We have an entire govt office to monitor taxes. They are auditing his taxes right now. Why does he need to show them to you too?

    Compliance with the emoluents clause - show the crime.

    James Comey - made up controversy

    Family separation - sorry, I don't know what this is.

    "Shithole countries" - Trump denied saying it and people there denied hearing it. There is no audio or video. Classic trumped up controversy. (Pun intended)

    Access hollywood tapes - please get serious. Tabloid TV?

    Were these events controversal?
    No, they were stupidity gassed up by the fake news meant to send liberals like you into a froth.

    In what manner are they fake?
    They are all non-issues reported as if they were hidden crimes of Trump. All complete with the speculation of how the noose was closing around Trump and his downfall was only a matter of time.

    When the story itself is true, it is reported in a fake way. That is why they have all amounted to nothing. All those breathless predictions of Trump being hemmed in, bogus. Fake, fake, fake.
  • dylancatlow
    dylancatlow avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 91
    0
    0
    3
    dylancatlow avatar
    dylancatlow
    --> @dustryder
    Some of the criticism is deserved, but much of it is driven by pure hatred. You can think of it this way: to the extent that Trump is right, the media are dishonest, because they find it impossible to deviate from their anti-Trump rhetoric even for a second to acknowledge that something he has said makes sense. They continue to peddle the lie that Trump "mocked a disabled reporter for being disabled" when this is demonstrably not the case. It is established fact that Trump's impression of that disabled reporter is merely the impression he uses to mock any flustered person. How likely do you think it is that he even remembered the reporter in question or that he was disabled? Some in the media are surely aware of the facts, yet the media product continues to reflect the false assumption the media have made in regard to the incident since the very beginning. You may think this is a petty thing to focus on, but it's not. It's the clearest example of media bias I can think of, and is proof that when the media can't find enough real things to criticize Trump about they resort to false allegations so that they can continue to present Trump as the stupidest and most immoral man alive. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,394
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @dylancatlow
    "When everything one says is a hyperbole, the truth disappears."

    -Greyparrot
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 860
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @dylancatlow @ethang5
    Remember Judge Kavenaugh? CNN reported he was guilty of sexual assault. That was a lie. It was their opinion, but told their viewers it was an actual fact.
    Then you should be able to find a CNN article that says Kavanaugh was guilty of sexual assault to back up your claims right? From my quick googling, most CNN articles have framed it in a accuser vs accused or in terms of allegations way. This language specifically indicates that Kavanaugh was only accused.

    You would think so right? But with Russia collusion, the fake news was already talking about whether Trump would only be impeached or also face jail time. For them, the collusion was an established fact.
    Source?

    Kavenaugh, Russia Collusion, or the pre-election numbers. Where did the fake news get those numbers that showed Hillery winning by double digits? Those weren't mistakes, they were lies.
    From polls I'd assume? Do you think otherwise?

    Sure. You would, because you follow the fake news like a good liberal. We know better. We know, for example, that the list Trump used to exclude citizens from 7 countries from entering the US was an Obama list. The fake news didn't report that, and you were swept away in the "controversy", but when it went to the supreme court, we saw it was a made up controversy, fake news. The supreme court ruled that Trump had acted legally.
    So, just because the supreme court arbitrates on either side of a matter doesn't make the matter controversial or non-controversial. For example, in the case of Roe vs Wade, just because the supreme court arbitrated in favour of abortions, doesn't make the issue any less controversial. Do you agree with this?

    No, they were stupidity gassed up by the fake news meant to send liberals like you into a froth.
    Of course that's one opinion. However the only reason we both know about those events is because they are controversial issues that have circulated the internet

    They are all non-issues reported as if they were hidden crimes of Trump. All complete with the speculation of how the noose was closing around Trump and his downfall was only a matter of time.
    In what way are they non-issues? For example, some people might find it interesting to find out the president has engaged in nepotism, as a departure from the norm.

    Some of the criticism is deserved, but much of it is driven by pure hatred. You can think of it this way: to the extent that Trump is right, the media are dishonest, because they find it impossible to deviate from their anti-Trump rhetoric even for a second to acknowledge that something he has said makes sense. They continue to peddle the lie that Trump "mocked a disabled reporter for being disabled" when this is demonstrably not the case. It is established fact that Trump's impression of that disabled reporter is merely the impression he uses to mock any flustered person. How likely do you think it is that he even remembered the reporter in question or that he was disabled? Some in the media are surely aware of the facts, yet the media product continues to reflect the false assumption the media have made in regard to the incident since the very beginning. You may think this is a petty thing to focus on, but it's not. It's the clearest example of media bias I can think of, and is proof that when the media can't find enough real things to criticize Trump about they resort to false allegations so that they can continue to present Trump as the stupidest and most immoral man alive. 
    I think people are capable of acknowledging when something makes sense or not, but in the case of Trump it's a matter of him crying wolf several times too many. For example, it is not established fact that Trump's impression is merely the impression he uses to mock any flustered person, only that it is his explanation for the event. It is then a case of whether there is evidence to support his explanation, and if there isn't, whether his explanation is credible or not.

    In this case, his explanation suggests that he has made the movement before. In which case is there a record of such? I'll operate under the assumption that there is no record of him performing the action and hence one must decide whether his explanation is credible, and this is where we apparently differ. For example, Trump has had a history of diversive comments and actions. Hence I'm less inclined to believe his explanation. The only question that remains is what lets you believe his explanation?
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    From polls I'd assume? Do you think otherwise?
    There were no such polls dolly. They were fabricated lies.

    So, just because the supreme court arbitrates on either side of a matter doesn't make the matter controversial or non-controversial.
    Think man. The controversy was the made up one that Trump had overstepped his authority. Only liberals were screaming and gnashing teeth.

    the only reason we both know about those events is because they are controversial issues that have circulated the internet
    Posted by sjw liberal snowflakes who find Trump's breathing to be "controversial". And then picked up by the fake news media, and viola, you liberals have a "controversy" you can use to denigrate Trump. Fake.

    For example, somemight find it interesting....
    "Some people" find ANYTHING that is negative about Trump interesting. The fake news knows this.

    ...what lets you believe his explanation?
    Common sense and being free of the irrational hatred of Trump.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    From polls I'd assume? Do you think otherwise?
    There were no such polls dolly. They were fabricated lies.

    So, just because the supreme court arbitrates on either side of a matter doesn't make the matter controversial or non-controversial.
    Think man. The controversy was the made up one that Trump had overstepped his authority. Only liberals were screaming and gnashing teeth.

    the only reason we both know about those events is because they are controversial issues that have circulated the internet
    Posted by sjw liberal snowflakes who find Trump's breathing to be "controversial". And then picked up by the fake news media, and viola, you liberals have a "controversy" you can use to denigrate Trump. Fake.

    For example, somemight find it interesting....
    "Some people" find ANYTHING that is negative about Trump interesting. The fake news knows this.

    ...what lets you believe his explanation?
    Common sense and being free of the irrational hatred of Trump.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,394
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    I wonder if there exists a question from the MSM that asks how Trump could improve on a policy that was good for the country?

    Good luck finding that.

    MSM does not care about the people or the country.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,394
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    The assumption by the MSM that there is no policy out of the thousands of Exec orders and supported legislation in the past 2 years that was/is beneficial to the American People from the Trump administration justifies the war on the fake news.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 860
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @ethang5
    There were no such polls dolly. They were fabricated lies.
    To clarify, are you questioning the existence of the polls, or what the polls said?

    Think man. The controversy was the made up one that Trump had overstepped his authority. Only liberals were screaming and gnashing teeth.
    To clarify, are you saying there was no controversy at all or are you saying that there was a controversy but the basis of the controversy was fake?

    Posted by sjw liberal snowflakes who find Trump's breathing to be "controversial". And then picked up by the fake news media, and viola, you liberals have a "controversy" you can use to denigrate Trump. Fake.
    Well, let's examine one of my examples a little closer. For example, the access hollywood tapes. Did Trump utter the phrase "Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.".

    If he did, was this phrase controversial? Why or why not?

    "Some people" find ANYTHING that is negative about Trump interesting. The fake news knows this.
    But this doesn't mean that they are non-issues. Perhaps you just find news in general uninteresting. For example, why is Trump's nepotism a non-issue? Actually before that, perhaps it should be asked if you believe Trump engaged in nepotism or not.

    Common sense and being free of the irrational hatred of Trump.
    I didn't intend to discuss that with you, but let's go ahead. What basis do you have to believe that Trumps explanation is genuine?

    Apart from that, would you agree or disagree that Trump has had a history of making insensitive remarks or actions? At the very least moreso than a typical leader of a 1st world country
  • KingLaddy01
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 411
    0
    1
    2
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    KingLaddy01
    I still can't believe that Trump got two scoops 

  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @dustryder
    There were no such polls dolly. They were fabricated lies.

    To clarify, are you questioning the existence of the polls, or what the polls said?

    Do you think the polls represented real people saying they would vote for Hillery?

    Think man. The controversy was the made up one that Trump had overstepped his authority. Only liberals were screaming and gnashing teeth.

    To clarify, are you saying there was no controversy at all or are you saying that there was a controversy but the basis of the controversy was fake?

    I'm saying whenever the fake news shoves you a fake story, you view it as a controversy. The only people in a tizzy are Trump hating liberals. Normal people just carry on as liberals and their fake news run around like chickens with the heads cut off.

    Posted by sjw liberal snowflakes who find Trump's breathing to be "controversial". And then picked up by the fake news media, and viola, you liberals have a "controversy" you can use to denigrate Trump. Fake.

    Well, let's examine one of my examples a little closer. For example, the access hollywood tapes. Did Trump utter the phrase "Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."
    I don't know and I don't care. I want my president to lower taxes, keep terrorists out of the country, stabilize the economy, and appoint sensible judges. I don't waste time with tabloid rags.

    If he did, was this phrase controversial? Why or why not?
    No one in my circles took notice of it. We were enjoying our tax returns and noticing the strong economy.

    "Some people" find ANYTHING that is negative about Trump interesting. The fake news knows this.

    But this doesn't mean that they are non-issues.
    It doesn't mean they were issues either.

    Perhaps you just find news in general uninteresting.
    Fake news yes.

    For example, why is Trump's nepotism a non-issue?
    The better question is, "why is it an issue to you?"

    Actually before that, perhaps it should be asked if you believe Trump engaged in nepotism or not.
    Placing family into positions in private companies is considered normal and expected. I am grooming my eldest daughter right now to take over my business

    Common sense and being free of the irrational hatred of Trump.

    I didn't intend to discuss that with you, but let's go ahead. What basis do you have to believe that Trumps explanation is genuine?
    I don't care. As my brain is not frazzled by irrational Trump hate, I don't pour over silly, petty things looking for controversies. I have a life.

    Apart from that, would you agree or disagree that Trump has had a history of making insensitive remarks or actions?
    "Insensitive" is a liberal code word. Trump is exactly the same as he has always been, and we elected him. We are sensitive to jobs, safety, and a good economy.

    At the very least moreso than a typical leader of a 1st world country
    We thank God each day that Trump is not a typical leader of a 1st world country. That is what we dumped when we canned Obama and is crooked would be successor.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,394
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @KingLaddy01
    Ice cream bad.

    Orange man bad.

    Listen to your MSM masters, they know what is best for you.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 860
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @ethang5
    Do you think the polls represented real people saying they would vote for Hillery?
    Do you have evidence that attests otherwise?

    I'm saying whenever the fake news shoves you a fake story, you view it as a controversy. The only people in a tizzy are Trump hating liberals. Normal people just carry on as liberals and their fake news run around like chickens with the heads cut off.
    What is the difference between a story that is viewed as controversial, and a story that is actually controversial? Moreover in what way is Trump enacting a travel ban a fake story?

    I don't know and I don't care. I want my president to lower taxes, keep terrorists out of the country, stabilize the economy, and appoint sensible judges. I don't waste time with tabloid rags.
    If you don't know and don't care about a particular topic, how can you judge it to be fake news, much less controversial or not? Do you then acknowledge that the access hollywood tapes could be a controversial issue either because you don't know about it, or because you don't care about it but others might?

    Placing family into positions in private companies is considered normal and expected. I am grooming my eldest daughter right now to take over my business
    So two things.

    Nepotism places people who have not deserved it into positions of power they would've otherwise not been able to attain. For that reason, it is often looked down upon. Given this, do you acknowledge why people might consider this to be controversial even if you do not?

    And, do you acknowledge that there is a significant difference between grooming your daughter to take over your business, and giving governmental positions to people whose sole qualification is their name?

    I don't care. As my brain is not frazzled by irrational Trump hate, I don't pour over silly, petty things looking for controversies. I have a life.

    "Insensitive" is a liberal code word. Trump is exactly the same as he has always been, and we elected him. We are sensitive to jobs, safety, and a good economy.

    We thank God each day that Trump is not a typical leader of a 1st world country. That is what we dumped when we canned Obama and is crooked would be successor.
    So do you acknowledge that an issue can objectively be a controversy without you personally acknowledging it as one?
  • Wylted
    Wylted avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 2,603
    3
    4
    9
    Wylted avatar
    Wylted
    --> @dustryder
    Is that really fake news? To me, fake news is, or at the very least should be news that is nonfactual but is reported as factual. Those topics seem more like subjective opinion pieces to me. And hopefully we can agree that he, his candidacy and his presidency have been marred with enough controversies that negative opinion is hardly unwarranted or a surprise.
    Fake news is just rhetoric to say over sensationalized and without much substance. EVeryone knows that is what Trump means when he says it

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,394
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Wylted
    Fake news are opinions disguised as factual news.

    Fake journalists are political activists pretending to be journalists by asking rhetorical questions.
  • KingLaddy01
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 411
    0
    1
    2
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    KingLaddy01
    --> @Greyparrot
    I wouldn't call some of them opinions. They're just unmitigated lies.
  • FaustianJustice
    FaustianJustice avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 146
    0
    1
    3
    FaustianJustice avatar
    FaustianJustice
    --> @ethang5
    There were no such polls dolly. They were fabricated lies.

    The polls that mattered mirrored the sentiment.  The majority of the voting population did not vote for Trump.

    Its no wonder as to why the 'victory' margin of the opposition would be misconstrued, the polls in outcome got it right, the polls in percentage got it wrong.

    Trump was simply not elected by a majority of the voting populace of this country.


    I don't expect you to accept that, just like every other presidential winner this century that had an R next to their name.  The majority of the population did not vote for them.  

    I am sure the take away for you will be grossly different that what the results should mean.