Zubeneschamali wrote: » You denied it was a ban, you said the media were wrong to call it a ban until someone quoted Trump himself calling it a ban, and then you suddenly started calling it a ban. But somehow it is still the media's fault.
KingBrian2 wrote: » Up to this point the media did not even accept the result of the election.
KingBrian2 wrote: » It was the media that spread the word that Trump was outlawing Muslims from entering the US so yes that is down to the newsrooms in America.
KingBrian2 wrote: » "Trump was outlawing Muslims from entering the US." is an untruth that has been fed to an army of hostile liberal protesters.
Walter H Price wrote: » The polarization and widening division of society as a whole at the moment is very unsettling. I'm not one for conspiracy theories or any of that stuff , but i do believe the media is having a massive impact on this widening division through very biased and emotive reporting. You are really left looking and thinking where has the neutrality in the media gone and what is the end game of having people so viciously divided on issues of such little relevance to them e.g Trump or any of the American election campaign
Walter H Price wrote: » i do believe the media is having a massive impact on this widening division through very biased and emotive reporting.
have some difficult news for everyone: Progressives aren’t interested in diversity. We aren’t interested in inclusion. We aren’t interested in tolerance. The progressives I know give exactly zero ****s about those things. We have no interest in everyone getting treated the same. We have no interest in giving all ideas equal airtime. We have no interest in “tolerating” all beliefs. I don’t know where this fairy tale comes from, but it’s completely disconnected from every experience I’ve had with progressive liberal folks in my lifetime.
Personally I’m not interested in a female president for the sake of “diversity.” Putting a woman in the white house in 2020 won’t mean that gender equality has arrived. We’ve had 43 presidents. It’s going to take 43 women serving as president before we even have a chance to reach parity.
Because democracy isn’t the only value we hold. We don’t accept the 51% enslaving the 49% by popular vote. We believe in human rights. We believe in the Bill of Rights.
And no, your right to not sell flowers doesn’t outweigh someone else’s right to get married. Because not all rights are equal.
Conservatives not having taken to the streets to riot when Obama was elected doesn’t prevent us from taking to the streets to direct as much resistance to Trump as humanly possible. Because Trump and Obama aren’t equal.
Or Trump may be bad, but Hillary is bad too, don’t forget. She called racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia “deplorable.”
alastair wrote: » Except for where they did. Care to point out an instance of a journalist refuting the outcome of the election?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I believe the opposite: throughout Obama's term, the media in the US fell over themselves to try and report Republican attacks on Obama and Hillary as if they were real and not just made-up nonsense. They abdicated their responsibility to report that actually Obama was born in the USA, and the birthers (including Trump) are telling lies. Their stories on Hillary should have read "Republicans lying about Benghazi again" or "Comey disgraces himself by lying in partisan bid to elect Trump", but instead they pretend there were no facts, just two contrasting opinions. And now we have Trump, who lies his head off, sends his press spokesman out to lie, and has an "adviser" Conway who has not yet managed to get through a single interview or statement without lying. The media encouraged this. Trump is quite right to suppose that most of them will confine themselves to saying things like "opinions differ" on the size of the inauguration crowd, or whether Trump is in Putins pocket, or whether Iraqis massacred US troops at Bowling green, or whether Trump is the most unpopular President since people started measuring popularity. He said, she said, there is no truth.
conditioned games wrote: » Those liberals that seek to stamp out different opinions by shouting, using insult words or even violence are a threat to democracy. However a larger share of liberals I would like to think are open to different view points and so I wouldn't try conform to whatever the mainstream media is telling us.
professore wrote: » No she didn't. She called a huge swathe of the US population deplorable, including large sections of people labelled by all the above tags who actually voted for Trump.
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
Hank Scorpio wrote: » Reputable journalists on twitter calling for his assassination the night he was elected was more damaging than refuting the election results.
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » They're not liberals, they're regressive leftists.
alastair wrote: » Like which reputable journalists?
Hank Scorpio wrote: » Some examples below. India Knight is a columnist for the Sunday Times with 150k followers. Monica Rajesh who writes for the Telegraph and has written for the Guardian. LA Times writer Steven Borowiec was fired after tweeting he wanted Trump to die and was subsequently fired.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/4/steven-borowiec-la-times-contributor-fired-after-t/
Reputable journalists on twitter calling for his assassination the night he was elected was more damaging than refuting the election results.
Hank Scorpio wrote: » You asked for examples and I gave, sorry to burst your bubble bub.
listermint wrote: » No bubble burst.just more of the same , transparent
Hank Scorpio wrote: » Nope, just more of the same. He asks for links to reputable journalists tweeting about Trump's assassination and I provided them, then has to twist it to try and point score, which is incredible petty - but the norm round these here parts.
alastair wrote: » I'm twisting nothing. Your claim: And your proof of same? - zilch. A tweet, months after the election, in the UK from a journo nobody in the US knows. :rolleyes:
eire4 wrote: » As abhorrent as the idea is those people wishing it obviously don't know much about Mike Pence as he would be even worse IMHO given what a religious zealot he is.
KingBrian2 wrote: » They don't know much about how elections work either. Assassinations is not how you change gvts. People voted for Trump to send a message now the far left and far right can exploit and use that message to suit their own agendas like stirring up religious discrimination or denouncing the President as a Tyrant simple for being elected.
MightyMandarin wrote: » The far right is Trump. He is stirring up religious discrimination.
KingBrian2 wrote: » Trump is a populist. He has many liberal positions. Many many liberal positions.
FA Hayek wrote: » Trump is not far right, as I mentioned in another post, do you really think a born and bred New Yorker living on the upper East side, is a secret member of the Klan or a Neo-Nazi? People get upset when big nets are cast calling all left wingers/liberals SJW's or snowflakes, yet here far-right is a catch all term.
