Trumpy does it again

[ShiftyNJ]

And the equivalent reaction when Obama or Clinton (either one) misspoke was.... crickets, or the media bending over backwards to explain what they meant.

When "respected papers of record" push out trash like this, and they've been doing it one-sidedly for decades, is it any wonder the press has less respect than it used to.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americ...w-low.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confiden...tions.aspx

Trash like what? I just read a TImes article about this and it seems pretty restrained. Most of it was quotes from people's reactions including the Swedish PM, and the clarification you describe was clearly outlined.

No, the (admittedly regrettable) "deplorables" remark didn't get any play at all. @@ I am not a HRC fan either, BTW, I can't believe we can't do better than the person who won. If either of them has ever made as many patently false statements as he does, they would get the same treatment.

And both the Times and Washington Post have enjoyed record subscription sales since the election (despite Drumpf claiming they are "failing"). They are owned by publicly held corporations and are required by law to report their earnings. I do not read things like HuffPo or the so-called Bipartisan report with the same level of cynicism as I do these publications which are demonstratively quite centrist in their editorial positions.

It does not surprise me at all that the public's trust in the news has decreased since the "fake news" narrative has been expanded from something very specific (third parties pretending to be legit news institutions by using deceptive hyperlinks) to anything that paints the other side of any given argument in a bad light. Extremists on both sides are guilty of it. The fact that we (supposedly) elected this man says volumes about our collective grasp on what is really going on and our ability to be manipulated.

[princealbertofb]

Simple question. Where did he say anything about a terrorist attack?

Paragraphs before and after the one with Sweden in it are talking about IMMIGRATION and vetting. Where he mentions Sweden, he's talking about them having problems, no mention of terror attacks.

So, why wouldn't anyone believe the White House explanation of what he was talking about. Oh yeah, because it advanced their narrative that Trump is dumb, or rash, or whatever.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/nation...cIKndWB0M/

Why then does he mention what happened in Sweden last night ? It's got to be a reference to something. Even the Swedes had NO IDEA what he was referring to. Sweden? Last night? What ??? More made up stories, whether it was about terrorism or other problems?

The other references, Paris, Nice, Berlin, were to terrorist attacks, surely. So it is quite clear that there was an inference there to similar situations even if the phrase terrorist attack is not mentioned. Let's not be disingenuous. Maybe it was a clever device but there's no smoke without a fire. Literacy includes being able to read between the lines. As in the case of threats, sometimes we don't like what we read. He's very clever at instilling fear. I think he's got us all on tenterhooks, and that can't be right.

By the way he did mention the ''terrorist attacks'', a few paragraphs earlier.

[kindy64]

Well, as explained in the Times article, he must have been referencing this http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/tucker-car...7830979001

From what I read of the Swedish PM's reaction, I don't think he's heard the same thing as what I'm hearing. President Trump was stating that recent immigrants have been causing problems in Sweden.

Of course, he wasn't referencing this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio...story.html

But here are articles and opinion about problems with immigrants in Sweden

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...trols.html
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how-s...migration/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/s...e26338254/
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7363/...mmigration
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...rants.html

[kindy64]

It does not surprise me at all that the public's trust in the news has decreased since the "fake news" narrative has been expanded from something very specific (third parties pretending to be legit news institutions by using deceptive hyperlinks) to anything that paints the other side of any given argument in a bad light. Extremists on both sides are guilty of it. The fact that we (supposedly) elected this man says volumes about our collective grasp on what is really going on and our ability to be manipulated.

Look at the graph, trust in mass media hasn't been over 50% since 2005, so this isn't some new narrative that's been expanded on...

Also note, that Independents in the second graph, hardly anyone outside of Democrats thinks mass media are trustworthy.

[InbetweenDreams]

Look at the graph, trust in mass media hasn't been over 50% since 2005, so this isn't some new narrative that's been expanded on...

Also note, that Independents in the second graph, hardly anyone outside of Democrats thinks mass media are trustworthy.

More people trust the media than the government...

http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/1...1958-2015/

[Emiliano]

[MENTION=22879]kindy64[/MENTION]

I get that you're not a democrat, that you're more conservative than a stereotypical gay man, that you're trying to take Kellyanne Conway's job, but surely you can see the absurdity in the way Trump talks, and recognize that he references a lot of.... alternative facts. I mean, you're not that far gone, right? Doesn't that kind of concern you at all?

Maybe you just get a kick out of twisting people's panties?
Or is it all really just a liberal hissy fit and anything negative about Trump is fake news in your opinion? I've seen you be critical of dishonesty and corruption and all... just not when it comes to Trump. Why hasn't he caught your attention yet?

Im just curious, does he not send up any red flags for you?

[trywait]

until #45 , I never imagined what alternative facts were

[kindy64]

[MENTION=22879]kindy64[/MENTION]

I get that you're not a democrat, that you're more conservative than a stereotypical gay man, that you're trying to take Kellyanne Conway's job, but surely you can see the absurdity in the way Trump talks, and recognize that he references a lot of.... alternative facts. I mean, you're not that far gone, right? Doesn't that kind of concern you at all?

Maybe you just get a kick out of twisting people's panties?
Or is it all really just a liberal hissy fit and anything negative about Trump is fake news in your opinion? I've seen you be critical of dishonesty and corruption and all... just not when it comes to Trump. Why hasn't he caught your attention yet?

Im just curious, does he not send up any red flags for you?

Well, let's take this particular case, what was he talking about? What people say he was talking about, or what the White House clarified?

FACT: Sweden is certainly having trouble with the mass immigration that has gone on there. See above link.
FACT: FoxNews did run a segment on that the night before the speech was given. Also linked above (I think)

So, why isn't this sufficient to explain his misspeaking on this occasion?

Take the 2 memes I've investigated about him. Pictures of him and with his parents in KKK robes, NOT TRUE. Making fun of a reporters disability, NOT TRUE. The first one was a photoshopped image, and isn't as serious. The truth of the 2nd one, is that he's used the same flailing characterization for a number of people, it's his impersonation of a "frustrated person." He even used it when describing himself getting ready for a vacation with his wife. https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true...isability/ The characterization of 2nd one, was a sticking issue for a great many people.

So, what is the purpose behind all these opinions being pushed as FACT? Why aren't people questioning the media more, instead of taking the attitude, I agree with it, so it must be true? I'm skeptical of everything being reported anymore. If it fits the lefts narrative, it's promoted non-stop. If a correction is made to that, it's later, quietly with hardly anyone noticing.

When someone can point to something that is actually dishonest or corrupt that he has done while in office, I'll first get to the bottom of the issue as best I can, since the media is failing in its job of presenting the unvarnished truth. Of course, you can point to any politician and find examples of broken campaign promises, hypocrisy, and policy which while legal, is disagreeable (especially to their opponents.)

He does sometime make overly broad statements, especially during the campaign. SO FREAKIN' WHAT? Clinton did the same thing, just about every politician does it. Yet, the press is more than happy to paper over Democrats doing it, while it's a national crisis when Republicans do it.

I'm tired of the one sided pile on by the media. Been seeing it for DECADES, sick and tired of it.

“Government is simply a word for the things we decide to do together,” is dependent on men with guns enforcing it. So, I'd prefer the government be as small needed, with very little power in general. Protect our nation, protect our individual rights, otherwise stay out of the way and let society work out social issues. I'm much more libertarian than republican.

[InbetweenDreams]

[MENTION=22879]kindy64[/MENTION] Why spread around memes which are 90% bullshit? People can and they buy it... to sway public opinion. We have to sway opinion with bullshit because otherwise it requires critical thinking. Critical thinking is pretty much being abolished if you ask me...

[kindy64]

Talk about kismet, this came up in one of my favorite sources https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/20...mainstream

By making caricature monsters of the other side, “you make reconciliation harder and harder,” says Fogg, the author. And it also could affect both parties' ability to see the real threat, he adds.

"You can’t write off the other team’s apocalyptic ideas as pure hysteria and embrace our own, and then when it doesn’t come to pass let it go," he says. "I think the trick is going to be ... figure out the real threat, and counter that. If we don’t, we’ll be scattered."