Political bias in today’s media

Author: cristo71

Posts

Total: 106
Topic's author
#31
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
If it's a story from the media, there is gaslight all around it spreading misinformation to every Democrat in America.
“Governor Cuomo? No, we never liked that creep. As if!!”
#32
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
pass by decapitated heads hanging from street lights…
Since that is what they face in their own countries, and since the US does not have nor want the sovereignty over those countries to force their leaders to take care of their own streets so those atrocities are not in public view, or anywhere, frankly, those countries must see to it themselves if they will. That they don't is not the fault of the US, and we should not have to bear the burden of their fearful citizens.

The "give me your tired, your poor" is not US immigrant policy, it's a bloody poem written to acquire private money donations for the Statue of Liberty, a gift from France, who figured we could afford our own bloody pedestal, being the wealthy USA. The pedestal was built in 1886, during the administration of Democrat, Grover Cleveland, who was too cheap to build it.

I've always figured other country leaders need to take care of their own citizens, and stop brow-beating them, then maybe so many people would stay home.
#33
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
By your own admission above, neither can… you?
Maybe, maybe not. One of us maybe correct, maybe neither of us. That’s why we’re here? I can tell you the tools I use to try and eliminate bias if you want.


I, too, feared reprisals from North Korea. So I’m with you up to this point. When those reprisals never happened, and tensions de escalated, MSM did not reflect upon their failed analysis.
But their analysis wasn’t wrong. The reporting and speculation both ways was not unreasonable. It’s not like, say, when new information about lab leak came out and the media self flagellated for a month; indeed after the NK settled down, there was a lot of opinion, experts and expression that I saw about how setting up 1:1 talks could work, because nothing else had.

There was the question of whether it would give KJU legitimacy, and hand a propoganda victory, or that Trump would hand out concessions that NK wanted with nothing in return (which is what happened with respect to military exercises)

If the media went back and explained why their speculation on how events could pan out was wrong - there’s be little else.

But saying that, I don’t think it was particularly bad, and the media do go back and assess what they said more often than I think you give them credit for.


Says your presumption…
If we agree on what was appropriate agree on what they did - then how far away they are is east to agree upon - Then it’s no longer just my presumption.

You seem to agree with what they did; and Agree with their reporting - and simply think they should have reported on why they got their opinion reporting wrong.


It is a perfect example of MSM taking a poorly worded phrase out of its larger context and unashamedly embellishing upon it. UV light can act as a disinfectant, by the way. Thanks for exemplifying my point, but I actually would find it more compelling if you addressed the second half of that post re: the timing of the Hunter Biden story.
It wasn’t “poorly worded”; it was simply and inarguably dumb. It showed a specific level of ignorance and willingness to just blurt out that ignorance that should not be coming from a president.Even in context. Factual reporting nailed what he said on MSM - many left leaning channels used the word bleach (but then context was wider forms of disinfectant), with almost every other mention using it flippantly - which I don’t begrudge on such a dumb statement.




Hunter Biden is simple. The New York Post article absolutely unbelievably stank. Various other organizations passed on it. NYP reporters wouldn’t put their name to it; it was passed to them by Guiliani, based on a laptop handed to a partially sighted repairman. There’s no part of that story that appeared credible to any degree - and no part of it that could be independently verified.

It seemed about as credible than the steel dossier appeared - and that was circulating prior to Trumps election without being reported on.


The key difference though; is that the laptop was supposed to show this huge corruption of Biden and Hunter - specifically trading influence for money, they couldn’t be corroborate, and the only things that we’re in the ballpark could be simply explained by Hunter Biden being a fuckup, and pretending he could do things he couldn’t.

That claim hasn’t gone anywhere meaningful.

What happens, is that in the midst of these charges against Joe Biden, if turns out Hunter was under investigation- something that no one was aware of - not even the right wing media for tax issues. But as it was credible - it was reported. 

This is to say that your point would be more valid if the laptop was used to point to Hunter being under investigation for tax fraud; that was dismissed, and it turned out to be true - but even saying that - even if the claim was Hunter was an idiot - something upon which all sides agree - Such an obvious partisan plant should not be touched with a bargepole.

Saying that, both the laptop and the case was reported in the media but with the extra context that was missing; reported as if the veracity was in question - which it was.




Topic's author
#34
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Then: “President Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David. Can you effin believe that messed up sh!t? Come on, man!”

Now: “The Taliban are our allies in Afghanistan.”
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
Leave it to the Ministry of Misinformation to decide which questions are "objectively"..."too dumb" to be ALLOWED to be heard.
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
It's outrageous that The Ministry of Misinformation gatekeeps so much that it actively discourages people from doing their own research, especially when it comes to Covid.

Democrats are now the party of "just shut up and do as you are told" and "stop asking objectively dumb questions"
Topic's author
#37
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
One of us maybe correct, maybe neither of us.
Correct? I’m expressing an opinion here and my reasons for holding it and inviting others to do the same. If you or anyone else is the appointed arbiter of which opinions are supposedly “correct” and which ones are “incorrect,” I am in the wrong place.

I can tell you the tools I use to try and eliminate bias if you want.
I’d rather you forwarded them on to the offices of CNN. “Attn: Don Lemon” would be even better.

But saying that, I don’t think it was particularly bad, and the media do go back and assess what they said more often than I think you give them credit for.
Perhaps. As stated in my OP, I do not see much journalistic detachment these days. I am not seeing the self reflection when they are mistaken. I did not see them give Trump the benefit of the doubt when the repeated negative predictions failed to materialize. They seem to look for the facts that fit the predetermined narrative. I see anchors who are virtually indistinguishable from political pundits. I see press briefings where the tough questions go unasked.

If we agree on what was appropriate agree on what they did - then how far away they are is east to agree upon - Then it’s no longer just my presumption.
When you assume something about my position without my agreement, I call that a presumption.

You seem to agree with what they did; and Agree with their reporting - and simply think they should have reported on why they got their opinion reporting wrong.
There you go again. I know the tactic you’re attempting to employ here. You can give it a break, Mr. Debater.

It seemed about as credible than the steel dossier appeared - and that was circulating prior to Trumps election without being reported on.
In contrast, the Muller investigation was time and money well spent.

#38
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Then, of course, there was the old “good people on both sides” narrative. It was as effective as it was misleading and out-of-context. Agreed, context matters.
Yes, context certainly does, which is exactly why the good people on both sides statement was so offensive.

The controversy over Charlottesville began well before the rally because of all the right wing militia and white supremacist groups that were planning to attend.  David Duke was a scheduled speaker and Richard Spencer was involved in the planning. This wasn’t some random grass roots people from the neighborhood type of event.

Then there were the chants of “Jews will not replace us” among the horrific scenes of that rally followed by the murder of Heather Hyer.

This was the context coming in to Trump’s press conference.

So how did Trump approach the situation? Did he show up ready to calm everything down? No, he showed up guns blazing towards the “alt-left” making sure to forcefully condemn them while paying lip service in his condemnations towards the right. That’s when the good people on both sides comment came out, which was absurd cause like I already pointed out, the only people involved were white supremacists. These “very fine people” he was talking about were a complete fabrication.

Then there’s the virtually countless, negative speculations and “backing the wrong horse”:

MSM warned of a Trump caused war with North Korea. Wrong.
MSM warned of a Trump caused war with Iran. Wrong.
MSM warned of a Trump caused recession. Wrong.
MSM anticipated that the Muller investigation would lead to Trump’s impeachment. Wrong.
MSM made a darling of Michael Avenatti. Wrong.
MSM made a darling of Gov. Cuomo. Wrong.

You’re trying to justify media bias by claiming they got predictions wrong. That’s not only not how that works, but that’s also misrepresenting what these networks were actually doing. The news media reports in the present, so they can only work with the information they have available at that time.

Let’s just look at your first example, “warned of Trump caused war with NK”… well duh, Trump was literally saying publicly that he would blow up the whole country if they made any more threats. To argue that the media should not have been concerned about a nuclear war being started by a president so childish that he’s going to make these kind of statements on Twitter is absurd. If Biden did that tomorrow you would lose your mind. 

can you please provide some examples of MSM holding Biden to account before the election?
Provide one example of something Biden should have been held accountable for which the media failed and I will be happy to give my thoughts.
#39
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
You can see how the media treats people that ask questions. Only the media is allowed to ask questions.

Just ask Nikki Minaj.
Asking questions is fine provided they are asked in good faith. The problem is when they are not.

This is a classic tactic by conspiracy theorists. Ask any 9/11 conspiracist what they think happened that day and they’ll all tell you they are just asking questions. It’s complete BS. Tucker Carlson is famous for this as well. And then there’s Nikki Minaj, who is “just asking questions” to her millions of followers making them think that Covid vaccines will make their balls swell.

To pretend that this is not a purposeful and effective tactic on the uneducated is ridiculous. And to ignore the context of those questions when claiming media bias is equally absurd.

Most people on the left believe all sorts of misinformation and lies such as:

1) Thousands of unarmed blacks are killed by the police every year.
2) Thousands of children die from Covid-19 every year.
3) Only a few thousand enter the country illegally and almost all by airports.
4) Antifa is mostly peaceful or a myth
5) Dozens of police were killed on Jan 6 by radical facists.
6) Trump's agreement  6 months ago forced Biden to give up airbases so we couldn't get the Americans out.
Can you please provide one example of a prominent left wing figure spreading any of these?
#40
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
The problem is when they are not.

Hence the gatekeepers screening "proper" questions.
Topic's author
#41
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
So how did Trump approach the situation? Did he show up ready to calm everything down? No, he showed up guns blazing towards the “alt-left” making sure to forcefully condemn them while paying lip service in his condemnations towards the right. That’s when the good people on both sides comment came out, which was absurd cause like I already pointed out, the only people involved were white supremacists. These “very fine people” he was talking about were a complete fabrication.
Who do you believe were the “fine people” on each side Trump was referring to, and what was the issue in contention?

You’re trying to justify media bias by claiming they got predictions wrong. That’s not only not how that works, but that’s also misrepresenting what these networks were actually doing. The news media reports in the present, so they can only work with the information they have available at that time.
No— I’m pointing out how they kept looking for turds to throw at the wall to see what stuck. If it didn’t  stick, no need to reflect upon it; simply look for the next turd to throw. Repeat as necessary.  
Let’s just look at your first example, “warned of Trump caused war with NK”… well duh, Trump was literally saying publicly that he would blow up the whole country if they made any more threats. To argue that the media should not have been concerned about a nuclear war being started by a president so childish that he’s going to make these kind of statements on Twitter is absurd. If Biden did that tomorrow you would lose your mind.
Funny— both you and Ramshutu address North Korea exclusively…

When tensions went the opposite way, MSM did not reflect and ask “Is Trump tapping into something we don’t fully understand via his unconventional behavior? Does he possess a curious knack for dealing with a dangerous dictator?” No, that would be far too much like a compliment… Instead, it was (again) “He cozies up with ruthless dictators!” On to the next turd…

Provide one example of something Biden should have been held accountable for which the media failed and I will be happy to give my thoughts.
Thanks, but no need. This response says enough for me.
#42
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
Finding the right media source is critical. I think 70% of journalism is fairly neutral in reporting straight facts with little skew with expert analysis, with like 25% being actual news outlets from local news stations.

It's the 30% that make publicity because the louder the take, the more attention they draw.

These are companies, and they want to make money
#43
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
The news media reports in the present, so they can only work with the information they have available at that time.
That statement is nothing short of naive.

when this article was published, Trump has been Presidernty about one hour. His apparent crime: Walking down the parade route hand in hand with Melania, Hardly an impeachable event.

CNN declares Ted Cruz refuses to talk to them after interviewing him directly.

story speaks for itself.


story speaks fort itself.

Sufficient to demonstrate the. point that the media is not the holy sepulcher you think it is.
#44
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@cristo71
The medias primary responsibility is to their paymasters.

So consequently, and irrespective of accuracy, media is wholly subjective and never neutral.

Media "strives" to be plausible.
#45
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Hence the gatekeepers screening "proper" questions.
It’s called using reason to assess one’s motivations. It’s kind of what human beings do.
#46
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
Cable networks took an extremely anti-Trump stance because they correctly read the room in that unlike a normal President the opposition to him was very very strong. I think he had like 40% “strongly disapprove” right off the bat. Controversy and outrage spur engagement, especially when it’s what people want to hear, and engagement is how these companies make their money. Fortunately nobody is watching anymore, I think cable news will continue to get more and more vestigial. I only watch the news for MAJOR events

I don’t actually think the media’s coverage of Trump was THAT biased—I mean it was, but people can detect bias and make their own conclusions. My problem was and still is the stuff that they refuse to report on. But it is what it is. Ultimately I think railing against the media is pointless, they’re not going to change, the negative impact is probably less than you think, and it redirects energy that should be spent elsewhere
#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
It’s called using reason to assess one’s motivations. It’s kind of what human beings do.

No it's not. It's fabricating reasons to justify irrational feelings. That's a particularly feminine trait of humans. Not all people do this.
#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
 My problem was and still is the stuff that they refuse to report on. 

The gatekeepers of proper thought.
#49
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
One of my greatest sources of smug satisfaction about being an anonymous Twitter lurker is that you get to know everything in advance. You get to learn about Epstein years before he becomes a household name, and you get to learn about coronavirus in early January of 2020. Unfortunately it also makes you sound like a schizo lol.

The media is really weird regarding what they choose to report. Just the other day I saw some of them complaining how there’s a “missing white women” syndrome in media coverage…well it’s not my fault what you choose to cover. I heard people saying there were over 400 missing Native American women in Wyoming over the last decade. I thought there’s no way, that’s a state of like 600,000 people. If that were true it would be a massive story. I looked into it, and it’s actually true! 

“Between 2011 and September 2020, more than 400 indigenous women and girls were reported missing in Wyoming, according to the report.

Homicide is the third-leading cause of death among Native women who are murdered at rates more than 10 times the national average, according to federal data.”

A victimization rate 10x the national average? That seems like a big story to me. I want to know more about that. Hopefully now they start to cover it



Topic's author
#50
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@thett3
Cable networks took an extremely anti-Trump stance because they correctly read the room in that unlike a normal President the opposition to him was very very strong. I think he had like 40% “strongly disapprove” right off the bat. Controversy and outrage spur engagement, especially when it’s what people want to hear, and engagement is how these companies make their money. Fortunately nobody is watching anymore, I think cable news will continue to get more and more vestigial. I only watch the news for MAJOR events
Sure. But it is not the purpose of news reporting to lick a finger and sense the winds of public opinion. That is what politicians do, particularly ones with few core values. Nor is it the purpose of reporters to sway opinion. They are supposed to report information so that one can be informed and come to informed conclusions. Opinion writers and pundits will, of course, give their views which one can take or leave as they wish, but that is known upfront, which is a crucial distinction.

I don’t actually think the media’s coverage of Trump was THAT biased—I mean it was, but people can detect bias and make their own conclusions. My problem was and still is the stuff that they refuse to report on. But it is what it is. Ultimately I think railing against the media is pointless, they’re not going to change, the negative impact is probably less than you think, and it redirects energy that should be spent elsewhere.
Yes, story selection can be and is indeed an aspect of bias. Of course, sometimes there are too many things to cover each adequately, and stories must be prioritized for time and space. However, media outlets have a lot of say in how much to repeat certain things, how much prominence to give certain things, etc. Therein lies great responsibility and great potential for irresponsibility.

I disagree with your dismissal of the potential impacts. The press, as an institution, exists ideally to keep government accountable. But if the press’ ideal of objectivity gets corrupted by pet ideology, who/what keeps the press accountable? I don’t think our founders had an answer to that.

If mainstream press loses the public trust for objectivity, why not simply find your echo chamber of choice elsewhere? And that is exactly what’s happening, and I don’t see it changing anytime soon. National division will continue to fester, and the press will feed off it and back into it rather than attempting to recenter it.

Needless to say, I don’t like to be right about these sorts of things, and I hope I am wrong…
#51
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@cristo71
If mainstream press loses the public trust for objectivity, why not simply find your echo chamber of choice elsewhere? And that is exactly what’s happening, and I don’t see it changing anytime soon. National division will continue to fester, and the press will feed off it and back into it rather than attempting to recenter it.

Needless to say, I don’t like to be right about these sorts of things, and I hope I am wrong…
You’re not wrong, but the point is that it already happened. That ship sailed a long time ago, and there will never be objectivity in the media ever again (if there ever was.) 

National division will continue to worsen until either one side wins decisively or there’s some kind of break up. Right now I expect the left to win decisively (sadly) but the outcome isn’t certain yet. I actually think the media has gotten slightly less biased since Trump left office because he perfectly checked all the boxes to enrage the type of people who typically work for media companies. 
Topic's author
#52
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@thett3
I would be interested to hear your rationale for a decisive ideological win from the left but in a separate thread for that purpose…
#53
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@cristo71
1) they have won the youth 
2) they obviously have the will to power (look what they are trying to do with majorities far far smaller than what Trump had)
3) the existing laws in place heavily favor the left, mass immigration of groups that vote Democrat and birthright citizenship for the children of any illegals who sneak over the border that nobody has the will to defend, etc 

The left actually did decisively lose the debate for the loyalties of Americans, in the 1980s. But because of the laws passed by LBJ it didn’t matter. They just had to wait it out a decade or two, run a conservatish President in Bill Clinton and by the 2000s they were back again. If it wasn’t for Hart-Celler the Democrats would have lost every single election since 1976 iirc. 

The biggest issue for the left I see is that their coalition is ripe for collapse because it’s driven by white liberals but the minority voters (and the remaining clueless non ideological white democrats) dont actually want the same things as the white progressives. The most likely way the right wins in the near term is a working class white/Hispanic coalition but idk if it will pan out….
Topic's author
#54
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@ethang5
Several late night leftist stalwarts have suddenly become more... shall we say, conservative?
I forgot to pursue this— who/what/how?


Currently, I’m having trouble getting the images out of my head of Stephen Colbert dancing with and high fiving Sen. Schumer and Jimmy Fallon’s very self-defeated look while he was getting schooled on white fragility by Robin DiAngelo… *shiver*
#55
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Who do you believe were the “fine people” on each side Trump was referring to, and what was the issue in contention?
That’s the issue - there were no “very fine people” on the the alt-right side, at least there was no evidence of it. Like I said, the event was organized by White supremacists, they literally had the former grand Wizard of the KKK as a featured speaker.

Since then there has been an attempt to fabricate images of very fine people there to prove Trump right, but those were all after the fact. The only thing that made the event news worthy at the time was its tie to overt white supremacy. Everyone knew that.

I actually don’t take Trump too seriously on his comment though, he’s a con man so saying nice things about people just to butter them up is 2nd nature to him. What I take as telling is the fact that given all there was to despise about what happened, all of his anger was directed towards the left and he was visibly frustrated that people weren’t focusing on them instead. That’s what the entire back and forth with reporters was all about for him.

This is the part that says more about him than anything else. He might have said some of the right things on paper but watch him and you see that there was nothing about his tone, body language, or the context of his statement’s to suggest that he was the least bit bothered by any of what we saw coming from the white supremacist crowd. That’s why the “good people on both sides” narrative is so offensive. His condemnations of white supremacy came off as an attempt to check the boxes on his talking point list. His condemnations of the left were natural and passionate. It’s clear where his head was.

No— I’m pointing out how they kept looking for turds to throw at the wall to see what stuck.
But your examples didn’t establish that. You are criticizing the media by comparing their stories in hindsight. Anyone can be made to look like a fool that way, so it’s indicative of nothing. If you really want to make a reasonable case you’d need to show how the information they were working with at the time suggested otherwise, yet I gave you very clear reasons why they were right to be concerned and you have nothing to say about it. I find that telling.

Funny— both you and Ramshutu address North Korea exclusively…
It’s literally the first thing on your list.

When tensions went the opposite way, MSM did not reflect and ask “Is Trump tapping into something we don’t fully understand via his unconventional behavior? Does he possess a curious knack for dealing with a dangerous dictator?” No
Because not only is there is no evidence of that, but given the traits and qualities Trump has demonstrated it’s an absurd suggestion.

You’re talking about a man who spent his entire life in real estate, a man who shows literally every sign of narcissistic personality disorder, a man who has demonstrated time and time again both his ignorance propensity to BS people. The idea that he is some hidden calculated genius is ridiculous, smart people do not talk or act like that.

Provide one example of something Biden should have been held accountable for which the media failed and I will be happy to give my thoughts.
Thanks, but no need. This response says enough for me.
This actually says more about you than it does me.  There is this thing we tend to accept here called the burden of proof. Notice how when I made claims I went out of my way to explain in detail why I believe them…

Your turn. You’re the one claiming Biden is not being held accountable by the media so it’s your burden to substantiate that claim, not my burden to search for examples to prove he is. The only notable example you gave was her Hunter laptop story, but I see Ramshutu already refuted that in detail and I don’t believe I saw any response to it.
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
You’re talking about a man who spent his entire life in real estate..
How does property development define one's character? Are all investors evil?
Topic's author
#57
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
“Who do you believe were the “fine people” on each side Trump was referring to, and what was the issue in contention?”

Again, this was the (honest) question I posed to you. You gave a comprehensive response, yes, but none of it answered any part of the question. I could ask you to reread my question, offer greater clarity, or even offer my answer to it… but I get the idea that would be futile at this point.

I think we have different objectives here:

Me: “This is my opinion, and this is why I feel this way. If you disagree, why (ie feel free to expand upon your disagreement)?
You: “Your opinion is unreasonable/wrong/invalid, and I won’t be satisfied until you admit to being wrong, or I have logically proven you wrong in this forum, the court of debateart.com. Recant, or I will proceed to demolish every point you bring up!”

You may not have realized this, but I haven’t been trying to convince you that your opinion is “wrong.” (Opinion doesn’t entail correctness/incorrectness unless the underlying facts involved are misunderstood, or worse, completely fabricated). I have merely been explaining to you why I hold my opinion in spite of your direct protests. I’m not going for “the win” as you seem to be.

In conclusion, I’m confident we could go back and forth in perpetuity to no avail here. Our perspectives are simply different. Human nature and the nation’s political polarization exemplified.

If you happen to work in news journalism, you have the distinct satisfaction of working with like-minded people with like-minded objectives. If you do not work in news journalism, you have my gratitude…
#58
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot
An IBEW investigative piece documented the Trump Organization’s reputation for underpaying or not paying its bills at all.  
Jack O’Donnell, former president of the Plaza casino in Atlantic City, told the Wall Street Journal it was a common practice.
“Part of how he did business as a philosophy was to negotiate the best price he could. And then when it came time to pay the bills,” O’Donnell said, Trump would say that “‘I’m going to pay you but I’m going to pay you 75 percent of what we agreed to.’”

It was known as the “Trump discount,” according to the Economist Magazine and it led to more than 3,500 lawsuits against Trump for nonpayment.
#59
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
What about the times Trump over payed? Surely he overpaid at times to lose billions.

What if Trump was boycotting bad industry by underpaying them?

It takes 2 to tango in the business world. There are no slaves in the free market, just wolves and sheep. Sometimes you go bankrupt, sometimes you win big. That's Vegas baby.
#60
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
How does property development define one's character? Are all investors evil?

Are only the investors that over pay and go bankrupt the "good ones?"