Trump Derangement Syndrome

Author: Mister_Man

Posts

Total: 65
#31
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I'd agree it would be alarming if the rhetoric matched the outcomes, but with Trump that isn't always the case, so you need to take a lot of his rhetoric with a grain of salt and focus on his actions. For example, his recent actions in Syria demonstrates his actions toward non-interventionist where long drawn out proxy wars are avoided and military presence is kept to the absolute minimal.

This means we can expect Trump to have similar actions toward Venezuela, regardless of the rhetoric. Simply by following actual policy trends and outcomes.

There are some problems with that.  Here are some ideas in favor of Trump's policy on Syria

1. Backing out of Syria incentivizes powerful allies to take up their own conflict of interest with the Russians. 
2. Syria is not exactly in our 'sphere of influence'
3. Syria is not a particularly potent supplier of anything good
4. The Syrian regime is not a direct and potent threat to national security interests
5. Bringing order back to Syria and promptly leaving, and letting others take responsibility, our adversaries shouldering the cost, is not a bad thing.
6.Trump might believe that the country cannot justifiably be reformed.

Venezuela is different than Syria, and a lot of options are on the table.  Trump has spent years demonstrating that he is capable of respecting our adversaries, but that he's willing to go there if necessary.  Its mad-dog politics, so you can't always tell when he's bluffing, but successfully ousting Maduro could benefit everyone, and we have a lot of interest in making the Russians pay dearly.  I would think twice about this one.



#32
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@dustryder
#33
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Good question. While I think other criteria may be in play, I think the core of fake news relies on no corroboration, anonymous or false sources, and grand speculation.
My issue with this is that by using the word "fake", there is a negative connotation attached to that particular news that implies that the news is literally fake. However with the criteria you've listed, the news is anywhere between at best accurate, to at worst misleading. This is a far cry from literal fake news reporting.

It should come down to the reader of news pieces to determine the validity of it and how much stock they place in those news pieces. The tools are already there, in the sense that news broadcasters will usually make the source of their claims available. Labeling these news broadcasters as purveyors of "fake news" is just a lazy divestment of your own analytical burdens.

Also saying you have evidence for something when you do not have evidence is fake news, for example..Schiff said repeatedly he saw evidence of Collusion, yet never revealed that evidence.
Saying you have evidence for something when you do not have evidence already has a term, called lying. 

Do you think the media have any part of the blame for their public perception?
Not really. As far as I'm aware, the media generally does their best to maintain accurate reporting and makes corrections as needed. 

For example, in the fake news awards wikipedia link, most of notes beside each example of "fake news" mention some sort of correction and/or apology
#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder

Not all of these fake news stories got a retraction. When a network gets the news wrong more than 20 times in the span of a few years, how are retractions supposed to inspire consumer confidence? How many times do you get to say "oops" before diminishing returns sets in?
#35
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
If a news vendor gets a horrific amount of stories wrong, it impacts their credibility and you are personally free to take as many grains of salt as needed when consuming their media if at all. I'm not sure what the problem is really. If you think CNN constantly misdirects you, surely this is self-inflicted misdirection.

Apart from this, spewing "fake news media" at everything doesn't really help. What would help is examining facts and evidence as to why CNN is not to be trusted. Your link is a good start. However, 20 cases is not sufficient to provide a general overview of the situation at CNN, nor does it mean anything on it's own if you aren't comparing it to a variety of other news vendors.


#36
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@dustryder
Does Trump call any news networks fake news?  I've heard him slam them a lot, and I vaguely recall him telling a reporter "you are fake news", but I don't remember him calling CNN fake news.  I remember him addressing businesses he doesn't like as a failure.  He called Buzzfeed a "failing pile of garbage", which at the time it most certainly was.  I've heard people calling CNN "Certainly Not News" long before Trump came into office, first time I heard it was from over seas.

#37
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
I didnt even include all the fake stories from this year. That link is up to 2018. Especially the recent collusion whopper burger. It's a lot more than 20 "gaffes"
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Snoopy
Oh he has DEFINITELY called CNN specifically fake news ...more than a few times...and nearly all in reference to the fake collusion narrative.
#39
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Snoopy
His usage is rather varied. He has used it for specific news pieces, as a blanket statement to describe general mainstream media and yes, some specific news outlets such as CNN where he described CNN as FNN (Fake news network)

#40
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Saying that still doesn't tell me anything without further context though. For example, if CNN is specifically more inaccurate than other news outlets, then you'd need data from other news outlets to compare it with. If you're claiming that CNN is egregiously inaccurate in isolation, you'd need to place the number of inaccurate stories in context of the total number number of stories published

#41
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
I'm not going to be able to defend that position. What I can defend is that they have demonstrated enough uncertainty to significantly affect their ratings since the Mueller report came out. And that is certainly not Trump's fault for having a report stating there was no collusion.
#42
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you justify "enough" without it being a completely arbitrary number?

I mean I could understand if all the data was available. For example, you could get the average number of inaccurate stories per news vendor and decide that anything that falls outside of the standard deviation is probably unacceptable. But you've essentially tossed a number out of a hat
#43
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
you are being too analytical, this is a classic example of "the boy who cried collusion"
any so called "news" agency that constantly tries to pass off opinion and conjecture as fact is misleading aka fake.  I find very little difference between misleading and fake.  In some of these "reports" I would go so far to call them out right lies.  Then there are people like that woman? Madcow who exaggerates and sensationalizes so much how can he/she/they be taken seriously?
Now consider the statement from some twits sadly elected to congress who make public states like the earth will end in 10 years or whatever.  Would you consider such a person who makes statements like that credible?  Whether they are an elected person or tv personality they have full control over what comes out of their mouths, or they should have anyway.
I don't think there's an actual number or number range for how often people have to be wrong or misleading before you can consider them full of shit.
#44
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@dustryder
D-Pirate----I don't think there's an actual number or number range for how often people have to be wrong or misleading before you can consider them full of shit.
Typical Trumpanzee rhetoric that stems from there immoral,  pathological misleading Trumper King of narcissism.



#45
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@mustardness
#46
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@dustryder
Let me give you a scenario, one main stream media reports on a story, they run a few articles regarding it, or report it as breaking news.  Other news outlets with the same agenda then report on the same thing over and over again (probably 5 or 6 networks).  The first media outlet finds out that it was inaccurate, then in one statement apologizes for it, and it usually has to be a pretty big inaccuracy. They make some tiny apology on the last page of the newspaper, or in a tiny segment of the show.  It is too late, half the country never sees the apology and does not realize it is inaccurate....Apologies don't mean anything. 

And if it has been long enough where most of the country has already forgotten, they feel no apology is necessary.  

Here is something else I distrust, and I can't see why people don't see it as well. The Washington Post claims they are in possession of a letter from Mueller to Barr saying that he mislead the public about the findings of the report.  They quote just a few lines from this letter, but will not show the whole thing to the public. 

Everyone wants to see the full Mueller report, that the Government won't release because of Grand Jury information (an actual law on the books), but the news outlets won't publish a full letter?  Why?  Because they have probably taken that letter out of context as well.

 

#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
CNN just got slapped with a 275 million dollar lawsuit for spreading fake news.
#48
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
I hope they lose an example needs to be made.
#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It will never go to court.
#50
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
Trump Derangement Syndrome

TDS

Tedious

XD
#51
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@K_Michael
run for the cure.
#52
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you are being too analytical, this is a classic example of "the boy who cried collusion"
any so called "news" agency that constantly tries to pass off opinion and conjecture as fact is misleading aka fake.  I find very little difference between misleading and fake.  In some of these "reports" I would go so far to call them out right lies.  Then there are people like that woman? Madcow who exaggerates and sensationalizes so much how can he/she/they be taken seriously?
I don't disagree to some extent. But I don't think news agencies really do what you've described to any significant extent. There is a clear distinction between news pieces and opinion pieces and I don't think news agencies should be blamed if you cannot separate the two.

Now consider the statement from some twits sadly elected to congress who make public states like the earth will end in 10 years or whatever.  Would you consider such a person who makes statements like that credible?  Whether they are an elected person or tv personality they have full control over what comes out of their mouths, or they should have anyway.

It would depend on the context. If the person means the world will end in 10 years a la biblical apocalypse, then I can safely assume the person is a nutjob and is to be ignored. If the person means the world will end in 10 years a la the point of no return in terms of climate change then I would say that this is a legitimate point of view that probably stems from research performed by scientists. If there's no clarifying context, I would take a look at the person and his/her past comments to take a guess at what the context that the comment was made in. Or you could ask the person what they meant. Of course this assumes I would care at all

Again, it's a matter of evaluating what you read.

I don't think there's an actual number or number range for how often people have to be wrong or misleading before you can consider them full of shit.
Yes there is. If there's 1 wrong story but the news vendor has published 1 million stories that's all fine. If the news vendor has only published 2 stories, this is not ok. If the news vendor has published 1 million stories and gotten half of them wrong, this is also not ok. Now you just count upwards from 1 until you hit a threshold where you say "this is not ok". Of course it's basically impossible to get the data to evaluate news sources in this way but the principle is all there.

#53
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@DBlaze
Let me give you a scenario, one main stream media reports on a story, they run a few articles regarding it, or report it as breaking news.  Other news outlets with the same agenda then report on the same thing over and over again (probably 5 or 6 networks).  The first media outlet finds out that it was inaccurate, then in one statement apologizes for it, and it usually has to be a pretty big inaccuracy. They make some tiny apology on the last page of the newspaper, or in a tiny segment of the show.  It is too late, half the country never sees the apology and does not realize it is inaccurate....Apologies don't mean anything. 

And if it has been long enough where most of the country has already forgotten, they feel no apology is necessary. 
We're not in the stone age. Information these days gets circulated around extremely quickly. The only exception is if you were to shelter yourself off from these sources of information or the story was so irrelevant that no one cares regardless. For example, in the case of the covington kids, when the additional videos surfaced, the new narrative defending the kids spread extremely quickly.

Apart from this, I don't have a problem with main stream media reports in such scenarios given that they report in good faith and make appropriate retractions or apologies when mistakes are made. My main criticism would be the speed with which news reports are pumped out can lead to premature conclusions, as which sadly occurred with the covington kids.

Here is something else I distrust, and I can't see why people don't see it as well. The Washington Post claims they are in possession of a letter from Mueller to Barr saying that he mislead the public about the findings of the report.  They quote just a few lines from this letter, but will not show the whole thing to the public.

Everyone wants to see the full Mueller report, that the Government won't release because of Grand Jury information (an actual law on the books), but the news outlets won't publish a full letter?  Why?  Because they have probably taken that letter out of context as well.
That particular letter has already been published. 

#54
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@dustryder
I agree, MSM is reporting before they have all the facts, but stories become irrelevant pretty quickly too, even if it wasn't irrelevant when it came out.  A retraction or an apology about something that happened a few weeks ago, no one cares about because everyone has moved on.  I'll check out the letter, thanks for letting me know.

The leaking has got to stop though.  Some things that are leaked are just not true too, so they must build a trust with these anonymous sources besides running with everything that shows up on their desks.
#55
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
But I don't think news agencies really do what you've described to any significant extent
well that's an opinion after all, and with some networks I would disagree, when I say networks it's because they are in control over their tv personalities, so the behavior they allow is a direct reflection on them.

It would depend on the context.

Now you just count upwards from 1 until you hit a threshold where you say "this is not ok". 
as I said opinion/subjective, therefore anyone can determine a level that it becomes fake news

I'm seeing a bigger picture in all of this, especially in recent events where the likes of Shiff and Pelosi make such outrageous and scandalous accusations with no proof.  There's no accountability or repercussions for them, the media, pretty much anyway.  So here we are, "the boy who cried collusion" 
Now when you use the context of a desensitized society is it any wonder why things are the way the are?  Those who wish to be heard are attacked, ridiculed or drown out by their opposition.  Insults and profanity are common and have little to no impact.  It's understandable why some see violence is the only way to be heard, if you can look at it objectively.
I'm sure you aren't old enough to remember when the news was boring a.f.  Walter Cronkite for example, it was boring because they were just reporting what actually happened with little to no spin compared to what we see today.
People love this controversy we currently are experiencing, it's the voyeurism in us. 

As far as this whole collusion thing, which networks do you think followed and reported it fairly?
#56
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@DBlaze
The leaking has got to stop though.
not going to happen, some of these networks have cult like followers, it's all about ratings and advertisers, follow the money.  dusty is perhaps a bit too idealistic or I'm too pessimistic, their thralls believe everything that is said by them and don't care or probably even know about retractions.  Nope the more sensational the better, they thrive on the reinforcement of their wishes they get from the networks.  They wanted the collusion to be true so badly, look at the reaction from the report.  that sure does say a lot.

#57
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The Democrats’ perjury/contempt/impeachment slander against Barr is based on the fact that, in prior congressional testimony, Barr was asked whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusions about the report, including that there was insufficient evidence to charge obstruction. Barr replied that he did not know whether Mueller agreed. Democrats now contend that Barr must have known Mueller disagreed because he had Mueller’s letter. But Mueller’s letter doesn’t say he disagreed with Barr’s conclusion – it says he was unhappy with how his work was being perceived by the public.

Barr and Mueller spoke by phone the day after Mueller sent his letter. If you wade through the first 13 paragraphs of the Post’s story, you finally find the bottom line...."When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not... but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."<<this is straight out of the letter.
So even Mueller conceded, that Barr’s letter was accurate. The liberal diva was just worried about the media coverage.

This behavior is expected when you have a person torn between appearing professional while having a team of incredibly biased prosecutors working on the 2 year investigation.

#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If even a person like Mueller is willing to leak information through the WAPO, you can expect it will never stop.

The only thing you can be sure of is that if there was some bombshell evidence in the unredacted report, you know that Mueller or one of his team would have already sent it through the WAPO.
#59
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@Mister_Man
So I'm curious as to why so many leftists disregard objectively positive accomplishments by Trump.
No, you're not. You've already made up your mind that they do it and that the reason they're doing it is because they are dishonorable. This thread isn't a query - It's an accusation and BTW, to whatever extent leftists do these things, the left doesn't do it significantly more or less than the right does. That's how it is with most everything.
#60
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Death23
So the Right is now the party of identity "baskets" and labeling the opposition deplorable as a means for censorship? Nice.