Democratic senator "hopes Trump is assassinated"

[hollodero]

(08-20-2017, 10:59 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Well I guess I wouldn't necessarily say it's a lack of awareness on the parts of Americans but more so a lack of care, like you said.  However, I don't think it's a lack of care because Americans are ignorant of it, but rather because some of us don't see the Russia story as a huge threat to our democracy in terms of them being involved with swaying the election process. Whether that's a good or bad thing or whether we're wrong in thinking that, honestly I don't know. What I feel personally is that a lot more Americans would be critical of Russia if they had somehow hacked the votes and made Donald Trump president.

I think that's the biggest problem about the whole Russia thing is that it had to do with Russia getting involved with and "influencing" our election. Problem is, no one could prove who was influenced by what and whether that "influence" really effected the outcomes. When you constantly try to tell someone that they voted for Trump because Russian propaganda brainwashed them, that's not something that's going to go over well, and that's basically what the media was doing. It severely undermines other reasons that people might have voted Trump that goes beyond the "fake news" stories because these people get thrown into this "Russian propaganda" bin when it really may have been the policies or promises made by the candidates that ultimately led someone to vote one way or another and really didn't have much to do with personal stories concerning either candidate.

That makes a lot of sense. The problem here, I guess, is the perception of the Trump voter. It's actually not what CNN (I guess) intends to do - tell Trump voters they've been tricked by a con man and his foreign helpers (although I personally think that's exactly what happened). They talk about it as a matter of national security issue - and becausae it damages Trump and makes for catchy stories. It's CNN, after all. But the first point also holds merit.

The Russian propaganda attacks do have, as it seems, some real potential and operate with some very advanced sociological knowledge. Sentiments are initiated, talking points established, people get microtargeted with fake news. It's a form of selective advertising and is opinion-shaping by a foreign power with vital interest to destabilize western societies. That's not a conspiracy. Neither is the Russians hacking the DNC and playing politics with the stolen Emails, of course.

Now as with any voter base, there are the reasonable voters and the unreasonable ones. The reasonable had good reason to vote for Trump, the unreasonable ones believed Hillary had killed dozens of people, sold uranium to Russia for personal gain, gave a stand down order at Benghazi and whatnot. This is not an unsignificant number of Trump voters who believe these stories. They were willing to believe Obama was a Kenyan muslim who hated America. These are the targets, and there are many, these are just the facts shown in many polls. A news organization not mentioning Russian influence and the possible effectiveness of it just to not offend a reasonable Trump voter isn't a news organization.
It's not just about the elction outcome. It's also how your society gets shaped. Russia intends to shape it on the principles of mistrust and discort, because a divided adversary isn't quite as adversarial.

(08-20-2017, 10:59 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I wouldn't say you're wrong in calling it a subjective matter. But I think it's important to discuss whether what's "subjective" has any objective merit. The argument extends to the point of what is it that a news station is supposed to provide to the public. What would you say that is? I would say it's news. Problem is, CNN barely reports news. They report something about Trump and spend hours sharing their opinion about the exact same thing. That's the biggest problem I see in all of it.

OK, I will shorten my answers a bit to say what applies to many of your points: I do not really disagree. I do not want to end up defending CNN more than I want to, and I've reached this point. Is this news? I wouldn't necessarily say so, I just always thought of it as the American way. No major news station in the US seems any different. I actually don't like CNN at all, I often can't stand it, the 8 windows with 8 little heads in it all giving out the typical talking points... that's not news as I see it, that's just confusing people. But it's who they are, they didn't become that way by Trump.
And they are sensationalists, and there's probably too much Trump talk.

Here's what I have to say about Trump and CNN: What I see is on the one side a news organization working in the described manner, reporting, digging for scoops, for sensationalism. And a president who feeds them, voluntarily or nivoluntarily, with major outrages, major blunders, major misinformation, major disbehaving. Yep, he feeds them. But from the outside, who do you blame for that situation: The journalists doing what's their job, or the president of the United States doing something which isn't his job. I blame Trump.

(08-20-2017, 10:59 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: You mentioned the General Perishing tweet. What do you think was so grand about that? Because honestly I have no idea.

General Pershing is rumored to have buried a muslim enemy soldier with a pig. That's not verified. Trump also more or less invented the myth that Pershing gathered 50 muslims, dipped 50 bullets in pig's blood and shot 49 of them. The 50th, he sent home to "his people" to tell them about it. And that was the end of Islamic terror, they were so goddamn scared of the blood bullets,Pershing knew how to handle them. That's what Trump talked about earlier and wanted us to research.

So - that's the reaction of the US president to an act of Islamic terror in Spain. This story of bullets dipped in pig's blood. Should we take that as a suggestion, or what? As response to terror, Trump reminded us all of this story, this stupid fairy tale for a really dark islamophobic child, this absurd tale that has no basis in reality whatsoever, and besides the fact that rounding up and shooting muslims is against any convention and against any sense of humanity also includes silly legends like muslims can't be in touch with pigs (ridiculous) and the notion that one would go back to "his muslim people" and terror would again stop for 35 years.
To say bringing up this stories is highly inappropriate is sugercoating it. It's as outrageous as it is stupid. The world takes notice.

(08-20-2017, 10:59 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: People want to know what it is that Trump is doing as president to effect the American people. All of this "Trumps said something nasty about someone" is an opportunity to indulge in laughing at the president. The news anchors even say it themselves. They literally sit there and laugh about what they're talking about and say it's "so much fun to talk about his tweets". I'm not making that up, it's what they've actually said and done multiple times. That doesn't sound like outrage to me, it sounds like mockery. mockery is not news or outrage. Sure if they want to sit there and make fun of the president go ahead, but they're not doing the American public any service in terms of reporting news that's actually important.

And people who have voted for Trump have shared their opinions on it multiple times when they've come on CNN. They say "I don't like the things that Trump says about other people, but thats's not why I voted for him. I voted for him because of the things he promised and because of how he said he'd get things done". So then, if that's the case why can't CNN spend more time talking about the things that Trump is trying to get done. I know why, because they don't want to. It's not as fun to talk about the laws Trump is passing or trying to pass. It's more fun to sit their and laugh at his ridiculous tweets and act like they actually matter to anyone other than Trump and CNN.

Yeah... I mean, sure, but isn't part of the problem that Trump doesn't get done much? When healthcare was on its way, CNN sure talked healthcare a lot. But Trump doesn't get much done, he doesn't put serious ideas forward, ideas for legislation, major policies... he'd rather tweet, blunder around, insult everyone but Putin and keep fighting with the fake news. But again, not overly defending CNN, if you want to see it that way they sure take the bait willingly. But there's not much Trump does policy-wise which they neglect. A little help for veterans here, a little rolling back net neutrality there, some cutting back environment protection... and of course the stock market, which always makes me wonder if republican white-collar voters know they actually don't own stocks. (And that the stocks would also rise if they get paid less and work longer hours with less safety concerns, if their water could get poisoned easily etc, but I digress).
What exactly is Trump trying to get done what CNN neglects? (That isn't a sarcastic question)

(08-20-2017, 10:59 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: People voted for him because it came down to what Trump made them believe and what he promised the American people. It wasn't about Rosie O'dennel, it wasn't about groping women, it wasn't about saying criminals were coming from Mexico. If it was, Mexican's and women wouldn't have voted for him. They voted for him because they felt that he would make their life better than Hillary or anyone else would.

Sure, people probably didn't vote for him because he was an indecent, narcissistic, classless human being. What's stunning is that so many people didn't mind.
I managed to understand that many Trump voters just found bigger issues for themselves. What is hard to digest is how many people still keep believing that Trump makes their life better, after so many things have turned out to be fairy tales already. Like Mexico paying for a wall. Like that he wants great healthcare for everyone for a fraction of the cost and that he knows exactly how to do it. That he will drain any swamp. The only thing he's got going is that less Mexicans want to live in Trump country and that he has managed to keep the economic growth going, which is something Hillary would probably have managed as well. Yet, I read that 6 out of 10 Trump supporters will never, ever change their approval of him no matter what. FOX openly asks so what if he's a criminal, who actually cares, because everything is so great now. That's the other astonishing thing here.