Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yeah you could google it but how would you know to if you hadn't been thought about it in the first place? There's certainly an argument for teaching beyond the facts but there's also an argument for keeping things factual and letting people form their own opinions.



She apparently has "family ties" to Hamas. but if family ties to terrorists was a reason to dismiss someones opinion half of Ireland would probably be silenced. I've been looking for some kind of explanation of her tweets in relation to Sharia law. None of her defenders seem to want to touch the issue. As far as I can tell she has no interest in bringing Sharia law to the country, she just wants the right to live by it. An interesting conflict between freedom of religion and the values of the people.

Fair enough, I need to properly dig into her background more.

Its tricky really discussing the support of her, she may be lovely and the march was needed which she did play a role in, but looking at the support she has retweeted its basically "the alt right is after me " etc, rather than facing the criticism. Trump would be proud of such diversion tactics!!

I assume she is getting plenty of alt right scum wrecking her head on twitter which is something nobody needs, but I haven't really read much of a defense of her so far that I am happy with that is not mere deflection.

I think she will be doing plenty of interviews , might have a look if the issue gets touched and what her response is.

If the journalists don't, its very bad work.

Anyone else catch one of the reporters whistling "Springtime for Hitler" before Spicer's conference yesterday?

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump is making people find their conscience again, that went missing when Obama was elected.

I am all for people finding their conscience, but wish people were more consistent and not use it to play politics.

I'd ask this. Why should a president need the press 'on his side'? Because there's the truth and then there's their truth. It stinks of propaganda. I respect a president that won't suck up to them.

They all backed Hilary to the hilt and gave him no chance of winning and he slagged them off the entire election. He made them look like idiots, and this stinks of sour grapes, not some sort of crusade for justice.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

As far as I can tell she has no interest in bringing Sharia law to the country, she just wants the right to live by it. An interesting conflict between freedom of religion and the values of the people.

That's an interesting point. But what is stopping her living by Sharia law in the US? Except for all the instances where it would enforce her ideals on others/

Igotadose wrote: »

why the President matters, yet again: Goodbye, Net Neutrality in the US

http://thenextweb.com/us/2017/01/24/new-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-wants-to-kill-net-neutrality/

The funniest part of this, is that huge huge amounts of 4Chaners and Alt-Righters previously lost their nut about the loss of Net Neutrality, but then they had a massive circle jerk and promoted a man who opposes it.

Butters1979 wrote: »

I'd ask this. Why should a president need the press 'on his side'? Because there's the truth and then there's their truth. It stinks of propaganda. I respect a president that won't suck up to them.

It is an interesting perspective but no one that I share.

I don't see a man standing up to the media because of some crusade for the truth, I see a man that is trying to bully the media in order that he can be in charge of the narrative.

Its not about getting the press on side, its about doing the right things, being as honest as possible and being open to bring the people with you.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is an interesting perspective but no one that I share.

I don't see a man standing up to the media because of some crusade for the truth, I see a man that is trying to bully the media in order that he can be in charge of the narrative.

Its not about getting the press on side, its about doing the right things, being as honest as possible and being open to bring the people with you.

I think he completely burned his bridges with them in the primaries and he knows this. He has no hope of controlling the narrative an is not trying to.

He doesn't like them so they don't like him. If they go for him all out I'm fine with that. It's free press. I just think all it will achieve is to get him more support. It's clear a lot of people don't like or trust the big news companies anymore. They've gone from reporting news to being entertainment a long time ago.

The press, and I very much include ours as well, need to break away from the fawning over whatever person/sport/area they are covering.

They need to seriously question why they need to sell themselves to get this direct access. What does it achieve? How many articles are in the papers which are basically a press release from the government? no questioning the 'facts', no follow up on the plans. Even yesterday we had the 'launch' of the Rural plan in Ireland. Pretty much a rehash of other reports.

But the media talk about it as if its a fresh new idea, a bold plan. So take the press statement and actually examine it, question it, get timelines and goals, who is responsible, who is accountable.

You don't need direct access to get that, you need access to the people around them. There is always someone willing to talk. Its not about landing the massive prize, that takes time and constant work.

The press need to be seen as more than just a mouth piece for whatever party they back.

Of course he is trying to control the narrative, what do you think Spicer and Conway are there for? To give the truth? Come on. They have even admitted to lying about disclosing his tax returns. They are no more interested in the truth than the media are. Trump does not dislike the media, hell they pretty much helped him to win by giving him blanket, unquestioning coverage. Sure they would ask a question but then fly off to whatever his latest tweet was.

Trump only dislikes the parts of the media that don't do what he wants. Its an important distinction. He loves the parts of the media that are kind to him

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Rjd2 seems to have reservations: I haven't really read much of a defense of her so far that I am happy with that is not mere deflection.

Fair enough, may have phrased that post a little wrong as I was out the door. She is entitled to her opinion and I am entitled to call her out on her opinions which initially to me sound pretty horrible.

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

One of the saddest things about the last week for me has been seeing intelligent people become hysterical and meet what they see as a lack of decency in public life with utter indecency themselves. I have found some of the women's march stuff really vulgar and demeaning of women. Also what they're supposed to stand for is the anthesis of this rife obsession with tearing his wife to pieces, his marriage , his child, his appearance.
Smart people seem to be having their view obscured by idiotic memes and social media fever discussing the gift his wife brought to the Obamas, comparing the Obama marriage to the Trump marriage etc. It's uncovered a really ugly underbelly of modern society. Hardly anyone is actually discussing anything of actual substance in regard to his presidency. I'm being led to despair more for the state of humanity than the inauguration of Trump himself.

This is depressing you? After 8 years of "Obama-the-Muslim-terrorist"?

Leroy42 wrote: »

The press, and I very much include ours as well, need to break away from the fawning over whatever person/sport/area they are covering.

They need to seriously question why they need to sell themselves to get this direct access. What does it achieve? How many articles are in the papers which are basically a press release from the government? no questioning the 'facts', no follow up on the plans. Even yesterday we had the 'launch' of the Rural plan in Ireland. Pretty much a rehash of other reports.

I don't think the media can afford to do that. If they don't put up click bait sensationalised news the general public will lose interest. They can't be honest about companies because then they'll lose advertising revenue, and if they call out celebrities like Trump they get hounded by his fans.

The old style media doesn't really work in today's world. It's there but they've lost their credibility by showing how dependant their point of view is on revenue.

The new style of people media isn't any better. It's lay people making assumptions based on fragments of information they don't understand. It's about as trustworthy as a guy in a tracksuit standing on a street corner looking shady.

Billy86 wrote: »

Funny enough, if you scroll back through this thread for one example, you'll find multiple examples since Friday of those against Trump bringing up many points of substance relating to his presidency, and pretty much every single time a concerted effort from the Trump fans to avoid, deflect, and change the subject onto anything else but that.

Both sides do it.