Isn't Trump, the evidence that America can become Tyrannical at any moment?

There was a lot of bad news coming out about the administration. That's only evidence of bias if you establish that the proper level is something else, which you didn't even attempt.
Your claim is that he deserved it then.

What this shows is that the media has had an unfavorable portrayal of the man since the campaign. As such, to call it "right wing media" is clearly not accurate. As I said to @Not A Theist, if you want to argue that "the plan backfired," then that's fine. But to say that they were showing him preferential treatment (AKA bias), then that simply wouldn't be true.
 
If you want to say that their plan backfired, then that's fine. But what they intended to do was to paint him in a clearly negative light to diminish his chances for success.

Then why did they air live unedited footage of his rallies? Why did they hire a full roster of talking heads to spin ridiculously on his behalf? Why did they act like a minor IT security protocol violation was the crime of the century? The CT angle here is just completely bananas if you actually look at the facts.
 
If you want to say that their plan backfired, then that's fine. But what they intended to do was to paint him in a clearly negative light to diminish his chances for success.

Well, even then, there is the point to be made that we can't be sure that there was a plan to sabotage Trump so much as the media just acted in alignment with its normal proclivities. The media oftentimes makes a big deal out of even small instances of racism and sexism, for instance, and he provided them a constant torrent of bad character markers that made him an appetizing figure for constant scrutiny towards and outrage over. The media acted towards him precisely like I would have expected them to act towards any questionably misogynist, racist, blowhard making a slew of outrageous and inconsistent statements.

Saying the media even had a plan implies that they were modifying their regular behaviour in order to actively sabotage the man. I'm not sure that is evidenced, as Trump acted in such a manner to start a media feeding frenzy - not necessarily out of premeditated ill intent on their part, but rather because he threw chum in the water and the sharks attacked. In this case, that benefited him.

Consider it this way. If you know a guy who has bad hygiene and you frequently point that out to people, are you biased against him? Not really - you're just pointing out that he's a smelly guy. Trump stunk, and the media spent about a year constantly saying "he stinks." Is that bias against him, or is it just frequently pointing out who the smelliest guy in the room is?
 
Last edited:
Your claim is that he deserved it then.

What this shows is that the media has had an unfavorable portrayal of the man since the campaign. As such, to call it "right wing media" is clearly not accurate. As I said to @Not A Theist, if you want to argue that "the plan backfired," then that's fine. But to say that they were showing him preferential treatment (AKA bias), then that simply wouldn't be true.

Bias isn't the same as preferential treatment. And the media portrayed Trump more than fairly. The right-wing media is something different from the MSM, though the MSM leans right.
 
Then why did they air live unedited footage of his rallies? Why did they hire a full roster of talking heads to spin ridiculously on his behalf? Why did they act like a minor IT security protocol violation was the crime of the century? The CT angle here is just completely bananas if you actually look at the facts.
I am looking at the facts, and to suggest that he was given anything resembling equal coverage is absurd. I don't know why they chose to air footage of his rallies, as I wasn't in the room for that one.

As for the talking heads, that's what they always do. The media did the same thing with John Kerry in 2004 when a fractured Democratic Party was vying to regain power. Giving the group a platform to speak is by no means unprecedented.

Minor IT security protocol? David Patreaus took a plea deal to avoid jail time for lesser offense. Speaking of IT security, why was the play made by the media that the Russians were going after the Clinton Campaign when it was their email server that was misconfigured? The Trump Campaign didn't configure that server, and to our knowledge, their folks did it correctly, and that's why they weren't hacked while the other one was.

It's not a CT. It's just simply stating something that most of us already know: The media has a liberal bias. It's been that way for years and years. Oh well.
 
Well, even then, there is the point to be made that we can't be sure that there was a plan to sabotage Trump so much as the media just acted in alignment with its normal proclivities. The media oftentimes makes a big deal out of even small instances of racism and sexism, for instance, and he provided them a constant torrent of bad character markers that made him an appetizing figure for constant scrutiny towards and outrage over. The media acted towards him precisely like I would have expected them to act towards any questionably misogynist, racist, blowhard making a slew of outrageous and inconsistent statements.

Saying the media even had a plan implies that they were modifying their regular behaviour in order to actively sabotage the man. I'm not sure that is evidenced, as Trump acted in such a manner to start a media feeding frenzy - not necessarily out of premeditated ill intent on their part, but rather because he threw chum in the water and the sharks attacked. In this case, that benefited him.

Consider it this way. If you know a guy who has bad hygiene and you frequently point that out to people, are you biased against him? Not really - you're just pointing out that he's a smelly guy. Trump stunk, and the media spent about a year constantly saying "he stinks." Is that bias against him, or is it just frequently pointing out who the smelliest guy in the room is?
So in your view, he deserved it. That's an opinion, so it's fine for you to hold that. I won't fight that. But to argue that the media was then an impartial arbitrator of the news is silly, as it runs counter to your view that he deserved the poor treatment he got.
 
I am looking at the facts, and to suggest that he was given anything resembling equal coverage is absurd. I don't know why they chose to air footage of his rallies, as I wasn't in the room for that one.

I think the reason is obvious, but I'm asking how you fit that into your CT? If they're actually trying to take him down, why would they do so much unethical stuff that helps him?

As for the talking heads, that's what they always do. The media did the same thing with John Kerry in 2004 when a fractured Democratic Party was vying to regain power. Giving the group a platform to speak is by no means unprecedented.

Wait, what? What media replaced anti-Kerry liberal pundits with pro-liberal ones? And, yes, I understand that they have a reason, but what's the impact?

Minor IT security protocol? David Patreaus took a plea deal to avoid jail time for lesser offense.

Holy crap, you don't really believe that, do you?

Speaking of IT security, why was the play made by the media that the Russians were going after the Clinton Campaign when it was their email server that was misconfigured? The Trump Campaign didn't configure that server, and to our knowledge, their folks did it correctly, and that's why they weren't hacked while the other one was.

The media covered Russia hacking communications by Democrats because that is very obviously a major news story. And it's possible that the GOP was hacked, too, but the info wouldn't be released because the intention was to help them win.

It's not a CT. It's just simply stating something that most of us already know: The media has a liberal bias. It's been that way for years and years. Oh well.

You "know" it because Fox and Breitbart are telling you it. But if you look into the issue objectively, you'll see that the CT is nutty.
 
do 'tyrants' sign executive orders to help solve problems created under other, apparently non tyranical leaders?

b/c this might be the first time in history if so.
 
So in your view, he deserved it. That's an opinion, so it's fine for you to hold that. I won't fight that. But to argue that the media was then an impartial arbitrator of the news is silly, as it runs counter to your view that he deserved the poor treatment he got.

Deserved is a value judgment I'm not going quite far enough to make. For perspective, I don't think that every white person who utters the N word deserves to lose their job, but I expect they will. In the case of Trump and the media, given a few suppositions, I think that this was the expected outcome. I actually do give Trump some credit that this may have been exactly the outcome he was pushing for, being a very media savvy individual.

Trump knew that the media reacted negatively, almost without fail, to certain types of activities. Trump knew that a certain significant portion of the voter base was sympathetic to some of those activities and the messages they represented. He ran an exceptionally inexpensive campaign by essentially providing the media with exactly what he knew they would react to and, when they unfailingly did, it galvanized the people who supported those things behind him.

The media is a large unwieldy beast which chases, unfailingly, what it thinks the public wants to hear - along certain lines, depending on the branch of the media. I don't believe it plots, per say, in the way you're suggesting, so much as just follows currents of popular expectation. Someone who knows what those currents are could, with the right platform, essentially goad the media into covering something excessively. Trump ran a perfect campaign to get massive coverage at virtually no cost - and in doing so, he courted the voter base that was supportive of those messages. This was not in spite of the media's attempts, it was because of them.

In the outcome, I do consider it quite possible that the media significantly favoured Trump through their actions, as they allowed him to run an effective, dirt cheap campaign, simply by doing what they would have done to anyone who poked the bear in the manner he did. In short? The media did precisely what they would have to anyone who would have acted like Trump did - and in doing so, they gave him the election.
 
Hrm... Don't you think there is a difference between "painted Trump positively" and "favoured Trump"? If the goal was electoral success, the constant, overwhelming coverage of the man was essentially free advertising, and created a bully complex that galvanized his base behind him.

Honestly, I don't think Trump would have had a hope in hell without the monstrously disproportionate amount of free press the man was given through his campaign. Whether they presented him positively or not, whether they intended to or not, CNN and other like news outlets helped him *tremendously*. That's a type of favouring in my eyes, so I don't really see what's unreasonable about the statement Jack made? Seems more like a semantic issue.

Consider it this way - if I wanted people to rally behind the most obnoxious kid in school, I'd publicly and (seemingly) unfairly bully her. Do that where people can see it and all of the sudden everyone is standing shoulder to shoulder with the person in question. The torrent of coverage Trump received did precisely this for him.
Look if Jack's view is that all publicity is good publicity then I would not take issue with it.

he is speaking to the slant or bias of the reporting and saying he thinks CNN favored Trump. I think that is a position he is completely on his own on.
 
Look if Jack's view is that all publicity is good publicity then I would not take issue with it.

he is speaking to the slant or bias of the reporting and saying he thinks CNN favored Trump. I think that is a position he is completely on his own on.

It's neither, really. I'm saying that they gave him special coverage to take advantage of his celebrity, changed their pundit lineup to continue to have people on both sides of every issue, and made terrible news judgment regarding a minor issue to placate Republicans and because they didn't take Trump seriously. The combined impact of those decisions was unquestionably positive for Trump, though the motivations may not have been.
 
When discussing bias in the media, what you're looking for is the intent. The coverage was so heavily slanted, demonstrating clear media bias that favored the Clinton Campaign.

Tone of Trump’s Coverage, by News Outlet
Figure-9-general-election.png

Source: Media Tenor. Excludes neutral news reports.

Of course, following the campaign, it's looked equally as bad.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...dy-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/5550...trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents
Derp.
 
Deserved is a value judgment I'm not going quite far enough to make. For perspective, I don't think that every white person who utters the N word deserves to lose their job, but I expect they will. In the case of Trump and the media, given a few suppositions, I think that this was the expected outcome. I actually do give Trump some credit that this may have been exactly the outcome he was pushing for, being a very media savvy individual.

Trump knew that the media reacted negatively, almost without fail, to certain types of activities. Trump knew that a certain significant portion of the voter base was sympathetic to some of those activities and the messages they represented. He ran an exceptionally inexpensive campaign by essentially providing the media with exactly what he knew they would react to and, when they unfailingly did, it galvanized the people who supported those things behind him.

The media is a large unwieldy beast which chases, unfailingly, what it thinks the public wants to hear - along certain lines, depending on the branch of the media. I don't believe it plots, per say, in the way you're suggesting, so much as just follows currents of popular expectation. Someone who knows what those currents are could, with the right platform, essentially goad the media into covering something excessively. Trump ran a perfect campaign to get massive coverage at virtually no cost - and in doing so, he courted the voter base that was supportive of those messages. This was not in spite of the media's attempts, it was because of them.

In the outcome, I do consider it quite possible that the media significantly favoured Trump through their actions, as they allowed him to run an effective, dirt cheap campaign, simply by doing what they would have done to anyone who poked the bear in the manner he did. In short? The media did precisely what they would have to anyone who would have acted like Trump did - and in doing so, they gave him the election.
I agree with most of what you wrote. I would merely say that he manipulated the media to his own end, rather than they favored him.

As for winning the election, I think it had more to do with Hillary losing than him winning. It should have been an easy win for the Dems.
 
LMFAO...Are you serious?...He claims he can pardon himself no matter what



His lawyer said he can shoot comey and not be prosecuted

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/03/politics/rudy-giuliani-trump-shoot-comey-impeachment/index.html


and his fanbase has ZERO problems with all of this....ZERO


The point is clear..If he isn't losing any support over these fucked up dictator like comments, which any other politician will get heavily scrutinized over.......Then this clearly shows that Americans don't have a huge problem with dictatorship statements like these, thus we are susceptible for a dicatorship.


So yes, under the right circumstances and with the right narrative, somebody can become a dictator in the USA.......Now will Trump actually do it? Doubt it but I wouldn't be surprised.....But trump has shown that it can be done.



Again, he hasn't actually DONE anything. Tweeting something and doing something are two different things.

Do you have anything he HAS ACTUALLY DONE???
Please tell me you have an argument and are not crying like woman.
 
Again, he hasn't actually DONE anything. Tweeting something and doing something are two different things.

Do you have anything he HAS ACTUALLY DONE???
Please tell me you have an argument and are not crying like woman.
I never said he did anything tyrannical...Im saying he is writing things that a Tyrant/Dictator will say and his fanbase like urself have ZERO problems with it...Thus, it safe to conclude that a dictator could take over America.

The more you defend him.....The more you prove my point.

You're the stereotypical delusional Trump supporter that would support his dictatorship or any other American dictatorship.

Thank you for proving my point.
 
Back
Top