• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Help me to understand the conservative mind.

So you agree Trump factually clarified that meant ~80% of MSM, which excluding his favorites like Fox and such...leaves Trump claiming the vast majority of MSM as the enemy of the people.

So you're taking it upon yourself to exclude Fox, cool bro. Further, a media source can publish both fake and real news. It actually happens all the time. If they do a fake news story once (MLK bust removal), that doesn't mean they are now forever fake news.

Hey...if you're not concerned with the utter trash the modern media has become, then there's nothing I can say that will sway your willful ignorance.
 
So you're taking it upon yourself to exclude Fox, cool bro. Further, a media source can publish both fake and real news. It actually happens all the time. If they do a fake news story once (MLK bust removal), that doesn't mean they are now forever fake news. Hey...if you're not concerned with the utter trash the modern media has become, then there's nothing I can say that will sway your willful ignorance.

Oh I'm asking you a direct question based on your earlier response, and that's the second time you have dodged it.

Third try:
So you agree Trump factually clarified that meant ~80% of MSM, meaning Trump did in fact claim the vast majority of MSM as the enemy of the people.
 
Why am I not surprised by such a weak response. Not only that, but even your flaccid response is just not accurate. One of the most dominant narratives about Trump is that he's racist. The way Trump talks doesn't help his case here sometimes, but when you add fake stories that make that narrative even strong it does divide. And I'm not making a judgement about whether he is or is not racist, just how that story does, indeed, cause division.

Interesting. I did not recall than angle but perhaps you are right.

I already said that inaccurate articles/stories were bad for the public. Do all of them "divide" us? Some can.

That said, whenever Trump does or says something that divides us, does that make him the enemy of the people, since that seems to be how you view "fake news"?
 
You weren't asking for help, you've made that abundantly clear. If you want to understand you have to be able to listen to what is being told to you, step outside of your own POV, and try and see if from the other side of the coin. You don't want to do that. Again, you just want to preach. How about you respond to the fake story put out by Buzzfeed, said to be inaccurate right from the source, the Mueller team.

What about the fake story about Trump removing the MLK bust? What about the fake story about Trump being a giant idiot dumping a bunch of food on fish when the full video showed he was just following the lead of Japan's prime minister. But no...in the bias-media's frenzy to jump on anything they can to make a "Trump dumb" story this whole thing became the biggest trending story for a while. Retractions later, after doing such a ****ty job, neither absolves them or fully fixes the narrative because the retractions never get the same traction as the initial story.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-trump-and-fish-food-dump-how-early-reports-/

Sometimes the fake news causes more direct damage.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/abc-news-corrects-flynn-bombshell-after-stocks-tank/

But no...you don't want to address this singular point regarding the utter dumpster fire that is the modern media. You refuse. You deny what is plainly evident. You deny reality. I knew we'd never get past this point. I knew it right from the OP.

So, no...you don't want to understand.

And you know of these errors and that they were errors, how? By the self correcting mechanisms of a free press. Far from “a dumpster fire”, other than in parts of the unprincipled world of the Internet, news journalism is as good today as it has ever been.


.
 
Interesting. I did not recall than angle but perhaps you are right.

I already said that inaccurate articles/stories were bad for the public. Do all of them "divide" us? Some can.

I believe the vast majority divide us. What are you thoughts on it?

That said, whenever Trump does or says something that divides us, does that make him the enemy of the people, since that seems to be how you view "fake news"?

I think his personal character does fall into a similar category. Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter if Trump was better in his conduct if he had an "R" next to his name. I haven't forgotten how the very moderate and even-tempered person that is Mitt Romney was demonized to basically be the worst person ever as well.
 
And you know of these errors and that they were errors, how? By the self correcting mechanisms of a free press. Far from “a dumpster fire”, other than in parts of the unprincipled world of the Internet, news journalism is as good today as it has ever been.


.

You missed some things.

First of all, you missed the part of what you quoted where I said, "Retractions later, after doing such a ****ty job, neither absolves them or fully fixes the narrative because the retractions never get the same traction as the initial story."

Secondly, many of the retractions are put out after others caught them in the false reporting.
 
I am a lefty and don’t think it’s that extreme at all. On domestic policy, I think conservatives see the power of the free market, and at times - much like some Marxists in a different way - think that it handles everything perfectly. If one isn’t successful, one is lazy or unworthy by some other standards. In my view, their wisdom is needed as brakes to keep us liberals from going off the deep end. But think of what you have when you go to work: a 40-hour week, minimum wage, safety standards, protection from discrimination, unemployment insurance, workers comp, plus SS and Medicare waiting for you afterwards. All of these that humanized the workplace came from the liberal impulse and tho supported by some conservatives, were opposed by more. The twentieth century was a triumph of domestic liberalism. Who would trade working conditions in 1900 for those today? In international affairs, both liberals and conservatives opposed the Soviet empire, but many conservatives supported fascist-like governments in Latin America due to their misunderstanding of popular movements, though Vietnam was a bipartisan disaster. Reagan is given credit for the collapse of the Soviets, but Russians I knew gave thanks for Carter’s even-handed human rights policy as a factor as well. Conservatives seem to like unilateral exercise of US power without adhering to international standards, in my view because it allowed us to go one on one with Grenada. Liberals place some faith in international institutions, which gets them flack from the right but support internationally. Empires like ours have tend to act arrogantly, deluding themselves about their intentions, which often are admittedly at least partly noble. The reason I am on the left is that I believe liberals represent a balance between naive faith in the free market and naive faith that the government can solve everything, plus distrust of blind patriotism. Conservatives are a necessary, healthy part of the political mix, but tho liberal vigilance is necessary to preserve progressive gains over several generations, history, as Bill Buckley said years ago, is moving against the right.

Apologies for the rant. Second glass of wine.

The conservatives that see themselves as a check on liberalism are the never trumpers.
 
The conservatives that see themselves as a check on liberalism are the never trumpers.

Exactly. The support of Trump has to do with cruelty, impotence, and hatred of outsiders.
 
Thank you for this shining example of begging the question.
Or maybe you just don't comprehend the answer. Is it that hard to grasp that one-sided propaganda media masquerading as factual reporting is the enemy of the public's right to be informed?
 
Dont think Trump said that.
He probably assumed we were smart enough to know propaganda masquerading as news is an attack on the people's right to be informed.
 
:lamo

You CANT forget collusion. That is the very CORE of the entire ****ing investigation. Its what every illegal warrant, every illegal wiretap, every illegal unmasking, and every illegal violation of Constitutional rights was predicated on. What you are doing is endorsing law enforcement fabricating any excuse to attack citizens. In our country thats against the law...its unconstitutional...and it leads to police states.

I dont give a **** what you want to do to your country. Hell, in the UK you people are throwing people in jail for saying things others might find offensive. So pardon me if ai dont give much opf a **** abut your opinion. Come to think of it...maybe thats WHY you and some of the other subjects from the UK post on this site and bother to engage in politics in a country that doesnt impact you...because if you said there what you freely say here, your ass is likely to find yourself in jail.

to add to this a bit:

to me this is the heart of the good argument for conservatism... conservatives , by and large, believe in the constitution of the united states and the individual rights it grants our citizens.

a LOT of liberal minded people seem more often than not, to be ok with wiping their asses with it if it goes against their beliefs.

this is not a POLICE State , therefore the police and law enforcement agencies SHOULD be following Constitutionally and lawful protocols, if there is a possibility they are NOT doing so then it must be investigated.

also, we DO NOT throw people in jail for speaking their mind. that's freedom of speech. can there be consequences for upsetting someone or saying things others don't like? sure, but I will never support jail time for free speech because it goes against the highest aw in our land... not to mention , its just wrong.
 
Exactly. The support of Trump has to do with cruelty, impotence, and hatred of outsiders.

Right..Buchananism on steroids
 
Exactly. The support of Trump has to do with cruelty, impotence, and hatred of outsiders.

I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Trump supporters, like many of those that have supported the rise of authoritarians elsewhere, have been harmed by the changes in the economy and job flight. They are disturbed by a different wave of newcomers and feeling that the powers that be don’t care about them, and that some liberals look down at them as Archie Bunker types. Liberals don’t help with our identity politics. Along comes Donald and says he will kick it to Wall Street and who confirms some of their fears, more or less with an identity politics of his own. “American carnage” was an absurd notion to me, but I am sure it appealed to many. The parallels between the rise of fascism in the 1930s are appropriate, with Franco and Mussolini the examples, but our institutions are strong.
 
Or maybe you just don't comprehend the answer. Is it that hard to grasp that one-sided propaganda media masquerading as factual reporting is the enemy of the public's right to be informed?

I comprehended the answer quite well, thank you.

In a world where people think “alternative facts” exist, question-begging and confirmation bias is rampant.
 
I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Trump supporters, like many of those that have supported the rise of authoritarians elsewhere, have been harmed by the changes in the economy and job flight. They are disturbed by a different wave of newcomers and feeling that the powers that be don’t care about them, and that some liberals look down at them as Archie Bunker types. Liberals don’t help with our identity politics. Along comes Donald and says he will kick it to Wall Street and who confirms some of their fears, more or less with an identity politics of his own. “American carnage” was an absurd notion to me, but I am sure it appealed to many. The parallels between the rise of fascism in the 1930s are appropriate, with Franco and Mussolini the examples, but our institutions are strong.

It’s not quite as simple...but the cruelty IS the point.
 
Back
Top Bottom