President Donald Trump

[frae]

Or, and this is complete speculation in my part with very little evidentiary support, CNN spins this and trumpisms like this for maximum clicks or views? I don’t know! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They absolutely do the same way Fox News did during the Obama era ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Bernie Brewer]

They absolutely do the same way Fox News did during the Obama era ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You won’t find me disagreeing on this. Im a Never Trumper and a Never Fox’r. I was a CNN addict but they’ve cured me. And, MSNBC is equally as unwatchable as FOX.

[frae]

You won’t find me disagreeing on this. I'm a Never Trumper and a Never Fox’r. I was a CNN addict but they’ve cured me. And, MSNBC is equally as unwatchable as FOX.

All 3 channels are for-profit news, I accept them for what they are, but to me, the main difference is CNN while playing fast and loose for clicks still tends to avoid some of the insanity Fox does and the 100% partisan news that Fox and MSNBC are. Fox and MSNBC are playing for their teams only, CNN isn't that they are just trying to make money too. I am sure that line isn't something everyone agrees with but I don't put CNN in the camp of playing it only to one side with Fox and MSNBC I just think Trump is so bad every day in so many easy ways that this is what you get. During W I was young so maybe you thought it was like this with him but I thought it wasn't I just think social media has pushed their online presence to seem much more clickbaity. I don't find the op-ed shows to be as painful as O'Reilly for me or Madow for a Republican.

This isn't the days of 3 networks reporting the news as a public service, it is all about finding a way to make money. I started rewatching Newsroom this weekend and wish that anyone would really strive for some of those things, but it isn't there. I mostly read the BBC NY Times and my local paper. The BBC is pretty fair and the Times does good investigation I think in long form.

[Bernie Brewer]

All 3 channels are for-profit news, I accept them for what they are, but to me, the main difference is CNN while playing fast and loose for clicks still tends to avoid some of the insanity Fox does and the 100% partisan news that Fox and MSNBC are. Fox and MSNBC are playing for their teams only, CNN isn't that they are just trying to make money too. I am sure that line isn't something everyone agrees with but I don't put CNN in the camp of playing it only to one side with Fox and MSNBC I just think Trump is so bad every day in so many easy ways that this is what you get. During W I was young so maybe you thought it was like this with him but I thought it wasn't I just think social media has pushed their online presence to seem much more clickbaity. I don't find the op-ed shows to be as painful as O'Reilly for me or Madow for a Republican.

This isn't the days of 3 networks reporting the news as a public service, it is all about finding a way to make money. I started rewatching Newsroom this weekend and wish that anyone would really strive for some of those things, but it isn't there. I mostly read the BBC NY Times and my local paper. The BBC is pretty fair and the Times does good investigation I think in long form.

I’ve said in other threads, that I think CNN only went cuckoo after the Trump election. While I’m not an expert, I almost feel as if CNN is overcompensating for all the free advertising they gave to Trump, and recognizing that they are complicit in his election. Again, I’m no expert, but they’ve gone in the tank and I used to think they were absolutely middle of the road. I suspect they’ve always leaned a little left, but they treated George W. Bush pretty fairly as I recall. I read the WaPo, NYT and WSJ regularly. I’ll watch CNN for real breaking news, but I try not to watch their panel discussions because they are so lopsided.

[Judge Jude]

So while I agree the press took his text and use the most salacious reading of it possible to create clicks I also agree that he did at the very least say her comment was nasty. So his tweet is also as misleading as the headlines...

"I never called Meghan Markle “nasty.” Made up by the Fake News Media, and they got caught cold! Will @CNN, @nytimes and others apologize? Doubt it!"

yes, that tweet is misleading. he should have said, "I never called Meghan Markle 'nasty' - I just responded that a negative comment by her that was mentioned by the interviewer was nasty about me."
but he can't settle for that - he has to up the ante.

[revo]

"if it wasn't Trump, then his handlers are so brainwashed as to feel it was OK to embarrass the Navy and its seamen over this."

9 is the latter, which is very likely the case. but you claimed 11, without evidence.

Huh?

The US Navy admitted that no, it wasn't the "lower-level officers" as they initially said but in fact the leaders of the Seventh Fleet who were contacted by the White House. Mistake on their part? Trying to cover it up? Putting it out there because Trumpies will fall for it off the bat?

They admitted the request went directly from the White House to the senior officers. The Navy admitted they put a tarp over the name. The Navy admitted they put the sailors of that ship on 72-hour leave. There are emails between the officers of the Seventh Fleet and the White House discussing all of this. What do you mean "without evidence?"

And I'm sorry -- you don't get to give a pass to Trump if it came from the White House, unless you think he's unable to control his team. They've all gone rogue, in your opinion?

[Steve 2.0]

Huh?

The US Navy admitted that no, it wasn't the "lower-level officers" as they initially said but in fact the leaders of the Seventh Fleet who were contacted by the White House. Mistake on their part? Trying to cover it up? Putting it out there because Trumpies will fall for it off the bat?

They admitted the request went directly from the White House to the senior officers. The Navy admitted they put a tarp over the name. The Navy admitted they put the sailors of that ship on 72-hour leave. There are emails between the officers of the Seventh Fleet and the White House discussing all of this. What do you mean "without evidence?"

And I'm sorry -- you don't get to give a pass to Trump if it came from the White House, unless you think he's unable to control his team. They've all gone rogue, in your opinion?

I don't know about rogue......but in my opinion they are all unhinged idiots. But, that's just me.

[Judge Jude]

They've all gone rogue, in your opinion?

which is more likely:

- Trump, who you usually (and accurately) would accuse of being lazy unprepared, etc, suddenly starts micromanaging every aspect of his visit beforehand - right down to which war ships (or boats, as he called them) - would be in the area?

- Trump's planners in the White House, realizing the possibility of Trump going bananas, try to do some preemptive damage control.

#Occam's Razor

[Steve 2.0]

which is more likely:

- Trump, who you usually (and accurately) would accuse of being lazy unprepared, etc, suddenly starts micromanaging every aspect of his visit beforehand - right down to which war ships (or boats, as he called them) - would be in the area?

- Trump's planners in the White House, realizing the possibility of Trump going bananas, try to do some preemptive damage control.

#Occam's Razor

I always wondered how good a shave Occam got with his razor.

[revo]

which is more likely:

- Trump, who you usually (and accurately) would accuse of being lazy unprepared, etc, suddenly starts micromanaging every aspect of his visit beforehand - right down to which war ships (or boats, as he called them) - would be in the area?

- Trump's planners in the White House, realizing the possibility of Trump going bananas, try to do some preemptive damage control.

#Occam's Razor

Why leave out the third possibility:

- Trump, after being informed by a terrified adviser that the McCain will be in the area, exclaims "you better make sure that ship is out of sight or you'll be joining the Mooch and that knucklehead Tillerson!"

[Judge Jude]

because that would contradict so many dozens of stories out there that depict staffers up and down the line making countless preemptive decisions without his knowledge? because the stories about this episode that have leaked so far make the administration look bad, and if you're willing to do that then why stop just short of the goal line, so to speak?

[revo]

because that would contradict so many dozens of stories out there that depict staffers up and down the line making countless preemptive decisions without his knowledge? because the stories about this episode that have leaked so far make the administration look bad, and if you're willing to do that then why stop just short of the goal line, so to speak?

Actually, isn't it the opposite -- Trump makes countless spur of the moment decisions without informing his staffers. Hence the many instances where we read that "staffers were caught off-guard by his comments/tweet...."

In what instances did staffers make important decisions without his knowledge that was leaked to the press?

[Sour Masher]

because that would contradict so many dozens of stories out there that depict staffers up and down the line making countless preemptive decisions without his knowledge? because the stories about this episode that have leaked so far make the administration look bad, and if you're willing to do that then why stop just short of the goal line, so to speak?

This makes sense to me, but don't you also see an issue with how Trump continually encourages this sort of bad practice? Him saying whoever made this call was well-intentioned is, to me, him letting that person know, yep, good job, you know what I wanted and you weren't out of line, I have your back. He did a lot of this with the Mueller investigation in ways i found appalling, publicly playing footsie with the idea of pardoning folks and/or sounding like a mob boss stating or implying people were rats and weasels for cooperating with government investigators.

He is consistently loyal and full of praise for any and all who praise and support him, and consistently vicious and petty to any and all who are critical of him or even those that just disagree with him, entirely independent of the right or wrong of the actions or the character of the people. In Trump's worldview, a Saudi Prince or Russian President or Korean dictator who murders reporters and commits countless other atrocities, but has nice things to say about Trump is praise worthy, while a war-hero or gold-star families or otherwise honorable men and woman who critique or even disagree with him or worthy of childish insults and over-the-top public attacks. Hell, he flip-flopped from insulting to praising Kim based on what Kim saying bad things about him in the past vs now saying bad things about his opponent.

For Trump, there are no good people and bad people or good ideas and bad ideas. There are those with him or against him, those that support his ideas or don't. He does not think like a world leader should. He is unfit for office and I continue to be perplexed by the need for some Never-Trumpers here to push back on what they see as hyperbole in attacks on Trump. I see some folks post way, way more on how "deranged" anti-Trump posters are than on the actual words and actions of our POTUS. Even in conceding that, yes, Trump opponents only focus on his negatives and can overstate things sometimes, I just don't see the benefit of this mediation at all. It comes off as apologetics for someone entirely undeserving of it. It strikes me as absurd that almost everyone who defends Trump (even though some here are quick to phrase that defense as, "I don't like the guy, but you guys are going too far with your critique") is a more articulate, more mature, more reflective, and more thoughtful person than our current POTUS. I'd once again implore you to keep your eye on the ball--that is the biggest issue. Why spend any time at all speaking up for a man worse than you in every way? Is it a form of OCD that any time you see the slightest disconnect in degree between the reality of Trump's egregious conduct and what you deem should be an appropriate characterization and response to it, that you are compelled to focus on that rather than the bigger issue of what Trump does and says and whether it is wrong or right?

[Judge Jude]

1. you were doing so well until you got around to making a diagnosis (wtf)

2. I think Trump's blunders are pretty well documented here already

3. when people decide to wallow in mud, the pig likes it. that is, making accurate observations - even over 'little things' like Meghan Markle - is not something we should just throw out the window because of Trump. yet some in the world are doing just that, and it's a shame. I'm not speaking up for Trump; I'm speaking up for standards of accuracy.

[nots]

There’s a difference between criticizing Trump’s many flaws and actively rooting for bad things to happen to the country/economy/stock market so you can crow about how bad his policies are. IMO, a couple of folks in here wouldn’t shed many tears (based on their postings) if the economy tanked, inflation and unemployment rose as long as they could post about it. Just my opinion........however, I think that’s pathetic.