Democratic senator "hopes Trump is assassinated"

[hollodero]

(08-18-2017, 09:11 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: She is a state senator, I think that's important. She's not the president of the United States but she still holds an influential position. As far as the reporting of the article I already had this thread typed out and ready to post but searched for about an hour looking for other articles on it to make sure it was real and accurate. I searched the CNN site trying to find any mention of it and I didn't find anything. I searched on google and no results showed up anywhere. Then all of a sudden it's there. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but other outlets were clearly shown to have reported it. Fox News was also one of the top results that popped up but I couldn't find anything from CNN. 

I can't tell you. Maybe it just popped up when I got the news of the day, might be coincidence. I stumbled across the story at once.

(08-18-2017, 09:11 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: For the record I'm not on any "side". I actually really used to like CNN and hate Fox News with a passion. But over the last year and a half or so I've really noticed how bias and ridiculous the reporting at CNN is. Yes, I understand a terrorist attack happened, but there's been multiple times where Ive seen CNN talk about something like Trump's comments about someone's weight or something and spend hours, sometimes days talking about something pretty minuscule when there were other important things happening in world. It's not all "conspiracy". Maybe I was wrong and they did report it earlier and for some reason my computer couldn't pick it up, but CNN clearly does have an agenda. Other times when I've searched for articles for their authenticity I've had no problem finding any mention of it by CNN.

An agenda... I mean, maybe they have an agenda. They sure don't like Trump and it's obvious. I for one can't really blame them. When a president uses his influence to deligitimize you and call you fake news whenever he doesn't like what is reported, while at the same time putting out one fabricated story after another, there's a counter-reaction to that. Can't see how there wouldn't.
But that's all I see as an agenda. They dislike Trump. They paint him as a primitive, classless radical who's divisive and puts himself over country, allies and friends. I for one see him as just that (and it's not because CNN tells me to) - if one sees him differently, I can understand the agenda argument.

The importance of stories is difficult to weigh. An US president attacking reporters and politicians by name and with very derogatory terms is newsworthy, one cannot easily ignore that, even though other things are going on in this world too. Even our European media reports on those things, for again he's the president. I don't want to stress this point too intensely though, I share the annoyance about certain things on CNN (like the weekly always exact same discussions about record low approval ratings and such). I am not exactly a fan. But some on team GOP (if you're not, ok, it just looked that way and I tend to throw people into one pot) take it way too far with their critizism. It's not a democrats' outlet, and the voices calling manipulation and propaganda usually just see what they expect in the first place.
You didn't do that, granted. But you seemed to take a similar line, and I want to call for caution on that. CNN is far more trustworthy then what the president says, at the very least. Painting it differently, as the WH wants to do, makes misinformation like it's coming out of the WH way easier. That's where I'm coming from, that's why I wanted to raise my voice against exaggerated CNN critizism (or what I saw as exaggerated, based on the fact that I found that story there).

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2017, 09:11 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: She is a state senator, I think that's important. She's not the president of the United States but she still holds an influential position. As far as the reporting of the article I already had this thread typed out and ready to post but searched for about an hour looking for other articles on it to make sure it was real and accurate. I searched the CNN site trying to find any mention of it and I didn't find anything. I searched on google and no results showed up anywhere. Then all of a sudden it's there. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but other outlets were clearly shown to have reported it. Fox News was also one of the top results that popped up but I couldn't find anything from CNN. 



For the record I'm not on any "side". I actually really used to like CNN and hate Fox News with a passion. But over the last year and a half or so I've really noticed how bias and ridiculous the reporting at CNN is. Yes, I understand a terrorist attack happened, but there's been multiple times where Ive seen CNN talk about something like Trump's comments about someone's weight or something and spend hours, sometimes days talking about something pretty minuscule when there were other important things happening in world. It's not all "conspiracy". Maybe I was wrong and they did report it earlier and for some reason my computer couldn't pick it up, but CNN clearly does have an agenda. Other times when I've searched for articles for their authenticity I've had no problem finding any mention of it by CNN.

(08-18-2017, 07:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That CNN story was online three hours before you posted this thread. It went up about the same time as the NYP story.

Take a look at the time stamps on the stories. CNN lists GMT, which is 4 hours ahead. NYP uses EDT. CNN's story actually went up before the NYP story. If the CNN story didn't pop up in your searching, then it may be a result of your overall search patterns causing the algorithms to not show it for you. It's how these search engines help reinforce our opinions and create confirmation bias.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-18-2017, 09:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Take a look at the time stamps on the stories. CNN lists GMT, which is 4 hours ahead. NYP uses EDT. CNN's story actually went up before the NYP story. If the CNN story didn't pop up in your searching, then it may be a result of your overall search patterns causing the algorithms to not show it for you. It's how these search engines help reinforce our opinions and create confirmation bias.

But like I said, I went to the CNN website but couldn't find it, and it definitely wasn't on their front page if it was posted because I looked all over the front page and then looked at other elements on the site and even used their own search feature typing in key words like "Democratic", "Senator" and "assassination". All I got was "Your search did not match". However now when I search those words it shows up pretty plainly.

[Benton]

(08-18-2017, 09:55 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But like I said, I went to the CNN website but couldn't find it, and it definitely wasn't on their front page if it was posted because I looked all over the front page and then looked at other elements on the site and even used their own search feature typing in key words like "Democratic", "Senator" and "assassination". All I got was "Your search did not match". However now when I search those words it shows up pretty plainly.

Just a guess, but as someone who operates three news web sites, what probably happened is the original story was published according to the time stamp, was made inactive at some point (most likely while you were searching) and then reactivated.

It happens pretty often. A reporter/editor is in a rush to be the first, so they throw a story up. When they reread and catch an error or new information comes in that needs to be included, they take the story down while it's edited. It's not a conspiracy, it's just one aspect of online news — you can stop or restrict it to edit your story as needed.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-18-2017, 09:36 AM)hollodero Wrote: I can't tell you. Maybe it just popped up when I got the news of the day, might be coincidence. I stumbled across the story at once.


An agenda... I mean, maybe they have an agenda. They sure don't like Trump and it's obvious. I for one can't really blame them. When a president uses his influence to deligitimize you and call you fake news whenever he doesn't like what is reported, while at the same time putting out one fabricated story after another, there's a counter-reaction to that. Can't see how there wouldn't.
But that's all I see as an agenda. They dislike Trump. They paint him as a primitive, classless radical who's divisive and puts himself over country, allies and friends. I for one see him as just that (and it's not because CNN tells me to) - if one sees him differently, I can understand the agenda argument.

The importance of stories is difficult to weigh. An US president attacking reporters and politicians by name and with very derogatory terms is newsworthy, one cannot easily ignore that, even though other things are going on in this world too. Even our European media reports on those things, for again he's the president. I don't want to stress this point too intensely though, I share the annoyance about certain things on CNN (like the weekly always exact same discussions about record low approval ratings and such). I am not exactly a fan. But some on team GOP (if you're not, ok, it just looked that way and I tend to throw people into one pot) take it way too far with their critizism. It's not a democrats' outlet, and the voices calling manipulation and propaganda usually just see what they expect in the first place.
You didn't do that, granted. But you seemed to take a similar line, and I want to call for caution on that. CNN is far more trustworthy then what the president says, at the very least. Painting it differently, as the WH wants to do, makes misinformation like it's coming out of the WH way easier. That's where I'm coming from, that's why I wanted to raise my voice against exaggerated CNN critizism (or what I saw as exaggerated, based on the fact that I found that story there).

Newsworthy? Yes. Breaking news type headlines with his tweets and Russia being 99% of your talking points?  No. I don't see how that is warranted. There's nothing wrong with CNN reporting about Trump, it's how much they report on everything he does that's the problem. Funny thing is, they say Trump won the presidency because of how much they reported on him yet they continue to do it anyway.

By no means is Trump close to being a "perfect" president, but CNN hated the guy before he became president and just continue to show that they won't stop hating him until he's no longer president. Sad thing is, Trump continues to play right into their hands by continuing down the road his on with his insults and remarks. It's like they're playing tug of war with each other, and honestly I can't really tell who's winning at this point. But part of me also feels like all the tweeting and things going on is all a bunch of smokescreen and none of it is "real" in the sense of outrage or real criticism, but a means to attack for the sake of playing the "game"

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-18-2017, 10:07 AM)Benton Wrote: Just a guess, but as someone who operates three news web sites, what probably happened is the original story was published according to the time stamp, was made inactive at some point (most likely while you were searching) and then reactivated.

It happens pretty often. A reporter/editor is in a rush to be the first, so they throw a story up. When they reread and catch an error or new information comes in that needs to be included, they take the story down while it's edited. It's not a conspiracy, it's just one aspect of online news — you can stop or restrict it to edit your story as needed.

And I wanted to say that they probably posted it and took it down but I didn't want people to start saying "Oh there you go with your conspiracy theories". I know that articles can be posted at a specific time but then later taken down and posted back up as a "new" article but really it was posted minutes/hours before but then taken down for editing or other reasons. But of course I can't  really prove that so I didn't want to be perceived as throwing around fake news.

[Benton]

(08-18-2017, 10:13 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: And I wanted to say that they probably posted it and took it down but I didn't want people to start saying "Oh there you go with your conspiracy theories". I know that articles can be posted at a specific time but then later taken down and posted back up as a "new" article but really it was posted minutes/hours before but then taken down for editing or other reasons. But of course I can't  really prove that so I didn't want to be perceived as throwing around fake news.

I wouldn't call it fake news. Most likely just an attempt by CNN to correct an error in the story or pull it temporarily as information developed.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

She probably shouldn't have said that. She went full Donald on that one.

[hollodero]

(08-18-2017, 10:09 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Newsworthy? Yes. Breaking news type headlines with his tweets and Russia being 99% of your talking points?  No. I don't see how that is warranted. There's nothing wrong with CNN reporting about Trump, it's how much they report on everything he does that's the problem. Funny thing is, they say Trump won the presidency because of how much they reported on him yet they continue to do it anyway.

Well, that's a difficult call to make, especially as a consumer. It's subjective. You are annoyed by Russia. Many people probably are not (like me, as an European I am quite aware of the danger they pose and that we are under Russian propaganda attack - many Americans are fairly chilled about that one, and I think you're wrong in being chilled). CNN, being far from perfect, goes with sensationalism and with the ratings. That the 99% number is fairly exaggerated is something you know, I just want to emphasise how exaggerated it is. And Russia is by no means a media construction. It's not CNN, not the public opinion, not democrats that brought the investigations and the committees and the special counsel on. And the existence of these things are extraordinary. Is it too much Russia, too much Trump - I couldn't say. I don't have the comparison, I just know that it's quite a huge story overall. Just, FOX talks Trump all the time as well. It doesn't seem exclusive to media like CNN that you consider agenda-driven.

(08-18-2017, 10:09 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: By no means is Trump close to being a "perfect" president

lol, by no means close to perfect, that is putting it mildly.

(08-18-2017, 10:09 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: but CNN hated the guy before he became president and just continue to show that they won't stop hating him until he's no longer president. Sad thing is, Trump continues to play right into their hands by continuing down the road his on with his insults and remarks. It's like they're playing tug of war with each other, and honestly I can't really tell who's winning at this point. But part of me also feels like all the tweeting and things going on is all a bunch of smokescreen and none of it is "real" in the sense of outrage or real criticism, but a means to attack for the sake of playing the "game"

It's not what a president is supposed to do - worrying about the media first and foremost, about his perception; instead of running the country and these things. So sure he is enabling what you describe by going on the counter-attack at alleged attacks; he seems to feed off of it. In other instances, I am fairly certain he uses shocking tweets as a distraction, things where he knows about the media reaction. Another thing is, your president is a FOX tool, or FOX a president's tool, however you want to see it. But this is his station, FOX is the "good media" as opposed to the "fake news" (because they are on his side as of now, that's actually an "agenda"). So whenever you see CNN as being on the other side of the aisle, it might not be because they are, but because it is orchestrated that way by Team FOX and Trump.
And that they hate him? That's on Trump, not on an underlying CNN agenda. He wanted them to, left them no legit choice but to be in opposition. The lies and misinformations coming out of the WH are one thing. The direct attacks are another thing. It's not possible to keep it real and shed a light on the Trump side of the stories, when in most cases this side just makes bogus claims (I think it is fair to say that). However, CNN actually tries to bring Trump supporters on in their opinion pieces, like this tool Jeffrey Lord and then some, to keep it as balanced as possible. That most apolitical or politically independent figures that get interviewed are anti-Trump too, and hence that there is that imbalance, is not CNN's fault.

[*jason*]

(08-18-2017, 11:18 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: She probably shouldn't have said that. She went full Donald on that one.

Yeah really. This is the tone that contributed the the phenomenon of a foul mouth game show host that made WWE appearances becoming the leader of the free world.

[BengalHawk62]

(08-18-2017, 11:18 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: She probably shouldn't have said that.  She went full Donald on that one.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-18-2017, 01:08 PM)jason Wrote: Yeah really. This is the tone that contributed the the phenomenon of a foul mouth game show host that made WWE appearances becoming the leader of the free world.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-18-2017, 12:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, that's a difficult call to make, especially as a consumer. It's subjective. You are annoyed by Russia. Many people probably are not (like me, as an European I am quite aware of the danger they pose and that we are under Russian propaganda attack - many Americans are fairly chilled about that one, and I think you're wrong in being chilled).

I'm confused as to what you mean by Americans being chilled about Russia. Not the phrase, but what you mean by that statement.

Quote:CNN, being far from perfect, goes with sensationalism and with the ratings. That the 99% number is fairly exaggerated is something you know, I just want to emphasise how exaggerated it is. And Russia is by no means a media construction. It's not CNN, not the public opinion, not democrats that brought the investigations and the committees and the special counsel on. And the existence of these things are extraordinary. Is it too much Russia, too much Trump - I couldn't say. I don't have the comparison, I just know that it's quite a huge story overall. Just, FOX talks Trump all the time as well. It doesn't seem exclusive to media like CNN that you consider agenda-driven.

It's not what a president is supposed to do - worrying about the media first and foremost, about his perception; instead of running the country and these things. So sure he is enabling what you describe by going on the counter-attack at alleged attacks; he seems to feed off of it. In other instances, I am fairly certain he uses shocking tweets as a distraction, things where he knows about the media reaction. Another thing is, your president is a FOX tool, or FOX a president's tool, however you want to see it. But this is his station, FOX is the "good media" as opposed to the "fake news" (because they are on his side as of now, that's actually an "agenda"). So whenever you see CNN as being on the other side of the aisle, it might not be because they are, but because it is orchestrated that way by Team FOX and Trump. 

Exaggerated? Maybe. Grossly exaggerated? Definitely not. I've been flipping between CNN and Fox News for months since Donald Trump ran for and became president and the amount of disproportionate coverage that I've seen is absolutely ridiculous on CNN. It may not be 99% but it's definitely up there. 

When Donald Trump tweeted the edited WWE video of him attacking Vince McMahon CNN spent four consecutive days talking about it. They even put out a report about their report to report what they had already reported about the tweet. They even went as far as to track down who originally posted the video and reported on that as well.

When I get up in the morning and turn on the tv it's constant talking about Donald Trump. When I get home from work and turn on the tv it's constant talking about Donald Trump. I've seen CNN air more live events of Donald Trump than Fox News. I would literally flip between the two when Donald Trump was speaking live and CNN would be the only one showing it while Fox News was busy talking about something else. Any chance they get to pick at anything negative he does during that live speech they are on it.  A lot of it is about ratings and people are falling for this "moral outage" BS that CNN is spewing.

Quote:And that they hate him? That's on Trump, not on an underlying CNN agenda. He wanted them to, left them no legit choice but to be in opposition.

What do you mean he "Left them no choice"? They're a news organization. They're supposed to be reporting news. They spend hour after hour talking about Trump because they choose to, not because Trump forced anything on them. You can report on Trump without having to spend hours talking about how he tweeted what he ate for breakfast.

Quote:The lies and misinformations coming out of the WH are one thing. The direct attacks are another thing. It's not possible to keep it real and shed a light on the Trump side of the stories, when in most cases this side just makes bogus claims (I think it is fair to say that). 

Please tell me what direct attacks that came from Trump you believe deserve a significant amount of air time.

Quote:However, CNN actually tries to bring Trump supporters on in their opinion pieces, like this tool Jeffrey Lord and then some, to keep it as balanced as possible. That most apolitical or politically independent figures that get interviewed are anti-Trump too, and hence that there is that imbalance, is not CNN's fault.

How is it not CNN's fault? CNN is the one choosing to report what they're reporting. They're the ones who decide to bring Trump supporters on the air to have a verbal war about Donald Trump's tweets. The fact that Trump said it isn't the point. The point is that CNN deliberately chooses to pick out every little thing that Trump does and airs it as "outrage".

After making this thread and responding to a couple of the comments I asked one of my co-workers today if he thinks the Donald Trump coverage on CNN is good or bad. He asked me "Good or bad for who? CNN or Trump?" I said "Trump". My co-worker and I talk about politics a lot, and he's a very left leaning individual and a huge Bernie Sanders supporter and a very opinionated guy..... I mean very opinionated. And he absolutely can't stand Trump.
   
After I asked him that question he immediately went on a full tirade about how the coverage is good for Trump and how he thinks it's stupid how much CNN reports his tweets and the stupid things that he says. He said CNN is doing exactly what helped Trump get to where he is. He was heavily critical of how CNN barely reported anything positive about the candidates (namely Bernie Sanders) and instead opted to go the ratings rout and just completely pounce on Donald Trump. He brought up the whole Rosie O'dennell thing and said "Who cares what Trump has to say about Rosie O'dennell. All of that is meaningless to me" He did however acknowledge that a lot of the stuff Trump said was “bad” but he didn’t believe it was worth “24/7 news coverage”. He brought up the Trump groping incident and said “Was it bad? Yeah, I thought it was ridiculous. But then they just kept going on and on and on with that stupid access Hollywood video and continued talking about it for days”.
 
He said it’s gotten to the point where he doesn’t even want to read or listen to the news anymore. He’s absolutely not happy that Trump is president but he also thinks the coverage of Trump is insane and just can’t wait for all of this to pass so he can stop hearing about Trumps tweets. He even said he's tired of the whole Russia thing when months before he was pretty adamant about it.

I went into our conversation with the assumption that he was going to just verbally beat down Trump when he actually ended up just saying everything that I wanted to say without me having to say it. The only thing I added in was that I thought CNN was only helping to bring fruition Trump's comments about how the media is on a "witch hunt" and he said "Absolutely. Look the thing is, Trump says a lot of dumb shit, but how is reporting all of the dumb shit he says inform me of anything other than the fact that he is a dumbshit which I've known way before the guy even became president? It's like the media is ltreating it's viewers like we're too incapable of knowing that Trump is a low life d-bag that hurls insults at everyone. We already know that. We've known it for months. We already know the type of person he is, why do they feel the need to beat us over the head with all of his dumbshit. They need to just move on and start actually reporting news instead of being a bunch of talking heads about the same damn thing every day. It's all just a bunch of bullshit.  Lets hear something positive about someone else instead of hearing the same negative shit about Trump"

Then he asked me "Do you honestly think Trump is doing and saying all the shit that he does because he actually believes it?" and I said "Well...." and before I could really say anything he jumped in and said, "I don't. I don't believe that dude believes any of the shit he says or posts or tweets or whatever. This is all a game to him and the media is playing right into it. Trump even said himself that all press is good press. Why don't people see what's going on here? This is all a bunch of back and forth bullshit like some sort of reality show. I'm honestly at the point where I don't care what Trump does anymore. I'm just sick of hearing about him."


That's not everything he said but that's the parts of our conversation (paraphrased) I can remember right now.

[StLucieBengal]

A democrat advocating for violence against a republican.

That's becoming as common as an Islamic terrorism attack.

[Benton]

(08-18-2017, 07:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: A democrat advocating for violence against a republican.

That's becoming as common as an Islamic terrorism attack.

Or a republican calling for a second amendment option. Or whatver.

[hollodero]

(08-18-2017, 07:20 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I'm confused as to what you mean by Americans being chilled about Russia. Not the phrase, but what you mean by that statement.

Many don't seem to take it that seriously. Ah, didn't change the outcome, or: ah, every country does things like that. Qúite relaxed in the face of a full-scale Russian propaganda attack on many levels. And to many western countries, although he's not that successful here in Europe. It's not for a lack of trying, but - just my guess - people here see things more awarely.
Almost every hearing starts with these words, inncluding Comey's: The important thing is what Russia did, it isn't exaggerated, in fact it gets lost in the Trump debate. First thing Comey said (at least something among these line), first thing almost everyone says. (Except for Sessions of course, who as AG never had any briefing about Russia.)

(08-18-2017, 07:20 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Exaggerated? Maybe. Grossly exaggerated? Definitely not. I've been flipping between CNN and Fox News for months since Donald Trump ran for and became president and the amount of disproportionate coverage that I've seen is absolutely ridiculous on CNN. It may not be 99% but it's definitely up there. 

When Donald Trump tweeted the edited WWE video of him attacking Vince McMahon CNN spent four consecutive days talking about it. They even put out a report about their report to report what they had already reported about the tweet. They even went as far as to track down who originally posted the video and reported on that as well.

OK. I don't intend to defend CNN more as I want to. Yes they can be annoying, yepp they have their three subjects they pass on from anchor to anchor as breaking news, now Cooper's take, now Blitzer's take, and so on. I guess it's inbuilt somehow. People that zap in for the news want the biggest news, no matter if it was already talked about in length. That being said. My small country has state-run TV (not recommended) and some private stations, but there's one thing I can say: If our chancellor had ever tweeted a meme like that against any news station, he would get grilled for it too. It isn't actually normal to declare war on the media like that. With Trump, one probably gets used to things like that. There are big things all the time. But I still don't, I can fully understand making a big thing out of tweeting this meme. Because it's amazing. I guess a majority in your country sees it similarly.
That's why I say, if coverage is too much or ridiculous always is a subjective call.

(08-18-2017, 07:20 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: When I get up in the morning and turn on the tv it's constant talking about Donald Trump. When I get home from work and turn on the tv it's constant talking about Donald Trump. I've seen CNN air more live events of Donald Trump than Fox News. I would literally flip between the two when Donald Trump was speaking live and CNN would be the only one showing it while Fox News was busy talking about something else. Any chance they get to pick at anything negative he does during that live speech they are on it.  A lot of it is about ratings and people are falling for this "moral outage" BS that CNN is spewing.

I don't think it's BS, I am not sure if you're making a political staetment here, or if I do that. I might be biased, because I'm actually outraged by many things, or let's better say: stunned. Didn't get used to the "new style", and I think it's good to not get used to Trumpism. But that sure is my personal anti-Trump stance talking about his anti-Trump sentiments. 
I just say as much, Trump often is the biggest topic in my country too, and we have elections coming up. It IS an amazing time and an amazing presidency.

(08-18-2017, 07:20 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: What do you mean he "Left them no choice"? They're a news organization. They're supposed to be reporting news. They spend hour after hour talking about Trump because they choose to, not because Trump forced anything on them. You can report on Trump without having to spend hours talking about how he tweeted what he ate for breakfast.

In all fairness. That is a misrepresentation about what they do. A tweet about his breakfast wouldn't be covered, he tends to tweet way more spectacular things than that. This General pershing tweet alone. What is a news outlet supposed to do with that, ignore it because the Trump news time is already used up? I really don't think so.

And if you're referring to the "he gets two scoops and everyone else just one", then I have to say, I have heard more from people on the right about that than actual coverage.

(08-18-2017, 07:20 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Please tell me what direct attacks that came from Trump you believe deserve a significant amount of air time.

Oh Jeez, where to start. The Mika [Brz... whatever, just Mika] attack. It's really disgusting, at least that's what I feel, too disgusting to just let slide as the new normal. Attacking senators, calling them "Flake" and whatnot. Attacking Sessions. Attacking crooked Hillary (even way after the election, he can't let go)... and it goes on and on, I really don't want to make a list. These all are newsworthy. Crooked Hillary statements are presidential statements, team Trump itself says as much. So of course they need coverage. It can't be the course of action to just get used to these and finally let them slide as Trump just being a cyber bully.
Maybe some, crroked Hillary doesn't get reported any more. But you have to talk about the Mika tweet.

(08-18-2017, 07:20 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: How is it not CNN's fault? CNN is the one choosing to report what they're reporting. They're the ones who decide to bring Trump supporters on the air to have a verbal war about Donald Trump's tweets. The fact that Trump said it isn't the point. The point is that CNN deliberately chooses to pick out every little thing that Trump does and airs it as "outrage".

After making this thread and responding to a couple of the comments I asked one of my co-workers today if he thinks the Donald Trump coverage on CNN is good or bad. He asked me "Good or bad for who? CNN or Trump?" I said "Trump". My co-worker and I talk about politics a lot, and he's a democrat and a huge Bernie Sanders supporter and a very opinionated guy..... I mean very opinionated. And he absolutely can't stand Trump.
   
After I asked him that question he immediately went on a full tirade about how the coverage is good for Trump and how he thinks it's stupid how much CNN reports his tweets and the stupid things that he says. He said CNN is doing exactly what helped Trump get to where he is. He was heavily critical of how CNN barely reported anything positive about the candidates (namely Bernie Sanders) and instead opted to go the ratings rout and just completely pounce on Donald Trump. He brought up the whole Rosie O'dennell thing and said "Who cares what Trump has to say about Rosie O'dennell. All of that is meaningless to me" He did however acknowledge that a lot of the stuff Trump said was “bad” but he didn’t believe it was worth “24/7 news coverage”. He brought up the Trump groping incident and said “Was it bad? Yeah, I thought it was ridiculous. But then they just kept going on and on and on with that stupid access Hollywood video and continued talking about it for days”.
 
He said it’s gotten to the point where he doesn’t even want to read or listen to the news anymore. He’s absolutely not happy that Trump is president but he also thinks the coverage of Trump is insane and just can’t wait for all of this to pass so he can stop hearing about Trumps tweets. He even said he's tired of the whole Russia thing when months before he was pretty adamant about it.

I went into our conversation with the assumption that he was going to just verbally beat down Trump when he actually ended up just saying everything that I wanted to say without me having to say it. The only thing I added in was that I thought CNN was only helping to bring fruition Trump's comments about how the media is on a "witch hunt" and he said "Absolutely. Look the thing is, Trump says a lot of dumb shit, but how is reporting all of the dumb shit he says inform me of anything other than the fact that he is a dumbshit which I've known way before the guy even became president? It's like the media is ltreating it's viewers like we're too incapable of knowing that Trump is a low life d-bag that hurls insults at everyone. We already know that. We've known it for months. We already know the type of person he is, why do they feel the need to beat us over the head with all of his dumbshit. They need to just move on and start actually reporting news instead of being a bunch of talking heads about the same damn thing every day. It's all just a bunch of bullshit.  Lets hear something positive about someone else instead of hearing the same negative shit about Trump"

Then he asked me "Do you honestly think Trump is doing and saying all the shit that he does because he actually believes it?" and I said "Well...." and before I could really say anything he jumped in and said, "I don't. I don't believe that dude believes any of the shit he says or posts or tweets or whatever. This is all a game to him and the media is playing right into it. Trump even said himself that all press is good press. Why don't people see what's going on here? This is all a bunch of back and forth bullshit like some sort of reality show. I'm honestly at the point where I don't care what Trump does anymore. I'm just sick of hearing about him."


That's not everything he said but that's the parts of our conversation (paraphrased) I can remember right now.

lol...
I guess everybody has his take.
Here's the thing, I don't blame CNN for being annoying with their Trump coverage. I blame Trump for being Trump.
As said, the alternative would be to declare having a misinforming bully president is the new normal. I for one am not there yet and never want to be there. And therefore I'm all for calling out every misinformation and every personal attack coming from the president, even if he just aims for that, even if it's getting all Trump in the news.

I only want to take out one specific take, because I really spend too much time defending CNN...

(08-18-2017, 07:20 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: "Absolutely. Look the thing is, Trump says a lot of dumb shit, but how is reporting all of the dumb shit he says inform me of anything other than the fact that he is a dumbshit which I've known way before the guy even became president? It's like the media is ltreating it's viewers like we're too incapable of knowing that Trump is a low life d-bag that hurls insults at everyone. We already know that. We've known it for months. We already know the type of person he is, why do they feel the need to beat us over the head with all of his dumbshit. They need to just move on and start actually reporting news instead of being a bunch of talking heads about the same damn thing every day. It's all just a bunch of bullshit.  Lets hear something positive about someone else instead of hearing the same negative shit about Trump"

...I get that. But maybe that guy watches too much news. I said it, it's a one-hout show per anchor, going through the biggest news. Blitzer can't say, oh that is important, but it was already covered by another anchor, let's report something else then. That's not how it works. I'm the first to say the whole CNN format isn't ideal.

Then again, many people in the US definitely don't seem to get that he is a "low life d-bag". Over 30% still believe he's a heck of a president and a fine person, deep down in his heart or whatever. I don't blame CNN for that either. If any, I blame FOX for that. When you see CNN as agenda-driven, you have to see FOX (at least parts of FOX) as a Trump propaganda outlet.
Then again, I still can't grasp that your country voted for that guy. I am biased.


--- didn't this thread start with you complaining CNN didn't cover the Trump assassination tweet?

[*PhilHos*]

(08-19-2017, 01:33 AM)Benton Wrote: Or a republican calling for a second amendment option. Or whatver.

At least Trump only hinted at violence and could claim some kind of deniability. This is just an outright calling for violence.

As for the CNN thing, I will say that prior to this past election cycle, they were, IMO, the most central of news organizations. They were slightly left-leaning, but they seemed as if they strived (strove?) for the middle ground. Since the election, though, they've certainly swung over to MSNBC level bias.

[GMDino]

It's nice to see a thread where both sides what was posted in the OP was wrong and agreeing that person should be held responsible.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

While campaigning for president, Drumpf suggested that his 2nd amendment fanatic followers could "handle" the opposition. Though he didn't actually say the words "kill her", it was clearly a death threat. This was actually the most egregious act of insanity that he committed on his way to the presidency, and people let it slide way too easily. He actually gained in the polls after suggesting this.

Now what's the difference here? Is it the explicit, rather than implicit statement?

Fwiw, not enough people are complaining about this one either. We say that there is a problem with how we handle conflict and treat one another, but when our political leaders set this kind of example, what should we expect?

[StLucieBengal]

(08-19-2017, 01:33 AM)Benton Wrote: Or a republican calling for a second amendment option. Or whatver.

Face it the dems have become the party of violence. It's a shame because that's not how most traditional democrats believe but the leftists drag them along