The unbearable smugness of the press

[Ornery]

And so the press continues to do what it does best - spin increasingly deranged narratives.

I like this one best. Trump has been in Trump Tower since Thursday - 5 days straight. Tonight he took his family to a steak house and didn't tell the press.

It's a violation of protocol they say...

Boo hoo!!!!

I mean seriously..

Wow, almost shifted back on topic.

Just one quick point about the OP, MSM and the Press. Starting with this question. Is it a given that Hollywood has a Liberal slant? Can anyone on the planet deny that? You might say that's a rhetorical question, but to me, no more so than the obviousness that the MSM/ Press is just as left leaning. Can you "prove" Hollywood is left leaning? Well, if it can be done, you can use the same method to "prove" our MSM/ Press is as well.

Again, the only reason to bring up this point (other than to get back on topic), is to show how pointless it is to argue with someone who can't see the obvious MSM bias. Imagine arguing with someone who doesn't see Hollywood/ Entertainment Industry as biased! It's stupid to even try!

 

[agent00f]

Wow, almost shifted back on topic.

Just one quick point about the OP, MSM and the Press. Starting with this question. Is it a given that Hollywood has a Liberal slant? Can anyone on the planet deny that? You might say that's a rhetorical question, but to me, no more so than the obviousness that the MSM/ Press is just as left leaning. Can you "prove" Hollywood is left leaning? Well, if it can be done, you can use the same method to "prove" our MSM/ Press is as well.

Again, the only reason to bring up this point (other than to get back on topic), is to show how pointless it is to argue with someone who can't see the obvious MSM bias. Imagine arguing with someone who doesn't see Hollywood/ Entertainment Industry as biased! It's stupid to even try!

Not news that smart creative people don't think like their opposites.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Except we actually study the electorate, and electorate themselves say racial resentment is a top priority. And it's no great shock people racially resentful vote for the guy whose platform was fanning those flames: https://thewpsa.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/racial-resentment-and-the-rise-of-donald-trump/. That's the resentful uneducated white demo he's got a lock on.

And those guys went +14% for R this round, the kind of shift on the order of civil rights era.



If people don't take note of why everyone loses to Trump, they'll just lose again the exact same way. Maybe the way to reach casual racist is to pretend they're not really, or out-racist trump with a sacrifice minority.

If you are saying that racial resentment was a factor I'm not going to argue at all and even enough to put Trump in the win because it was so close that many things were probably a factor.

That said remember what she actually stated, and that was half of Trump supporters were straight up racists and the like. Again race plays a factor is did Islam, but half were deplorable people? Blacks collectively commit half the violent crimes so "basket of deplorables"? I don't believe that but neither do I buy Hillary's statements.

What I do know is human nature and if you go around labeling people wholesale there will be backlash and there should be. Saying to middle class workers in fear for their jobs, or have lost them for something not paying the bills, that they are like her heiress daughters who are privileged because they are white while they are looking at a stack of unpaid bills, is not enlightened. It's callous bigotry and pandering.

Talking slavery and history is irrelevant to those who feel that no one is sympathetic to their real and current problems does nothing to heal the divide. Quite the reverse. For anyone saying "but Trump", well he played people too and no he has nothing I see that will make things better either. But in the context of why things worked out as they did and this plays a factor as well.

Both parties need to drop the superior act. There is no "big tent", but marketing towards demographics. Picking a group and inciting resentment or disdain for others. There is a long long way to go and it applies to those who truly hate minorities and many many others.

 

[Ancalagon44]

If you are saying that racial resentment was a factor I'm not going to argue at all and even enough to put Trump in the win because it was so close that many things were probably a factor.

That said remember what she actually stated, and that was half of Trump supporters were straight up racists and the like. Again race plays a factor is did Islam, but half were deplorable people? Blacks collectively commit half the violent crimes so "basket of deplorables"? I don't believe that but neither do I buy Hillary's statements.

What I do know is human nature and if you go around labeling people wholesale there will be backlash and there should be. Saying to middle class workers in fear for their jobs, or have lost them for something not paying the bills, that they are like her heiress daughters who are privileged because they are white while they are looking at a stack of unpaid bills, is not enlightened. It's callous bigotry and pandering.

Talking slavery and history is irrelevant to those who feel that no one is sympathetic to their real and current problems does nothing to heal the divide. Quite the reverse. For anyone saying "but Trump", well he played people too and no he has nothing I see that will make things better either. But in the context of why things worked out as they did and this plays a factor as well.

Both parties need to drop the superior act. There is no "big tent", but marketing towards demographics. Picking a group and inciting resentment or disdain for others. There is a long long way to go and it applies to those who truly hate minorities and many many others.

Quite right.

I half expect the Democrats to lose again in 2020 because I don't think they understand this. They are going to sling around accusations of racism and of voters being backwards, instead of working with the voters to find out what bothers them.

If they instead tried to understand what bothers these millions or rural voters, they might stand a chance. But at the moment, they just insult them. Why would anyone vote for a party that insults you?

Saying, "Yes, but they shouldn't be racist" is also missing the point. Let's assume that they are exactly as racist as everyone assumes. I don't think they are, but let's make that assumption. How then would you attempt to get them to be less racist? Do you think calling them deplorables is going to shame them into not being racist? No, of course it won't. It will make them dig in their heels.

 

[agent00f]

If you are saying that racial resentment was a factor I'm not going to argue at all and even enough to put Trump in the win because it was so close that many things were probably a factor.

That said remember what she actually stated, and that was half of Trump supporters were straight up racists and the like. Again race plays a factor is did Islam, but half were deplorable people? Blacks collectively commit half the violent crimes so "basket of deplorables"? I don't believe that but neither do I buy Hillary's statements.

What I do know is human nature and if you go around labeling people wholesale there will be backlash and there should be. Saying to middle class workers in fear for their jobs, or have lost them for something not paying the bills, that they are like her heiress daughters who are privileged because they are white while they are looking at a stack of unpaid bills, is not enlightened. It's callous bigotry and pandering.

Seems pretty obvious they're going to be better off than those on the other side of whatever wall they're planning. That's the point, isn't it?

Talking slavery and history is irrelevant to those who feel that no one is sympathetic to their real and current problems does nothing to heal the divide. Quite the reverse. For anyone saying "but Trump", well he played people too and no he has nothing I see that will make things better either. But in the context of why things worked out as they did and this plays a factor as well.

Both parties need to drop the superior act. There is no "big tent", but marketing towards demographics. Picking a group and inciting resentment or disdain for others. There is a long long way to go and it applies to those who truly hate minorities and many many others.

I would agree a worthwhile & meaningful point of a forum like this is to discuss the metagame, the marketing, and not to partake. That's why I tell it like it is how trump's marketing won, how his constituents helped, what influences them, what they proclaim influences them & why, and hopefully how they can be better marketed to by a competitor. That last bit is rather key given you've seen the way they react to being told how it is.

 

[zinfamous]

Quite right.

I half expect the Democrats to lose again in 2020 because I don't think they understand this. They are going to sling around accusations of racism and of voters being backwards, instead of working with the voters to find out what bothers them.

If they instead tried to understand what bothers these millions or rural voters, they might stand a chance. But at the moment, they just insult them. Why would anyone vote for a party that insults you?

Saying, "Yes, but they shouldn't be racist" is also missing the point. Let's assume that they are exactly as racist as everyone assumes. I don't think they are, but let's make that assumption. How then would you attempt to get them to be less racist? Do you think calling them deplorables is going to shame them into not being racist? No, of course it won't. It will make them dig in their heels.

I'm not about to say that dems will still be there 4 years from now--that is a very long time--but if folks like agent and others prattle on about this nonsense without the slightest interest in self-reflection, you will be correct. But--it's only been a week. There is a lot of valid anger here and many are just slower at going through their phases of grief. Recall that for some months after November 2012, it was widely understood that the Republican party will never win the White House again unless they change their messaging. Well, here we are, and this dude sort of triple-downed on that inflmatory rhetoric.

It's really up to the DNC to do their job the next couple of months in selecting proper leadership and retooling their message. They lost their old-school base, which is very clear, and if they think it is because of "racism" then the dems deserve to lose going forward, much to this country's regret with a resurgent alt-right army of well, actual racists that feel legitimized by a Trump that should have easily lost with the support they gave him.

As outright stupid as Hillary's deplorables comment was in the pantheon of identically stupid comments from POTUS candidates (hell, Romney was actually nicer by only calling out 41%, lol), she was correct in thought but completely wrong in degree. Half of Trump's supporters is just completely ludicrous. It represents a level of cynicism that may be pervasive among the electorate, but it has no place in an elected official largely trying to run on a message of "making an already great country even better." So, Hillary: if this country really is already great, then why are you calling half of this guy's supporters unapologetic racists? And the way his supporters flipped that around as a badge of honor with their schwag. Lol-what a disaster.

I think that in the end, the dems just need to get back to their ground and, quite frankly, see what this historically unpopular candidate manages to do while on the job. There is still a high probability that, if he follows through with only 30% of his promises, he will shoot himself in the foot with the majority of the public. If he follows through with none of them, he loses his diehard followers. He doesn't have a whole lot of friends in the GOP, so there is a real chance of some coalition between dems and moderate republicans to get shit done. Imagine that: the most divisive assclown in US history is needed to actually get those idiots working together again.

Interesting times...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Seems pretty obvious they're going to be better off than those on the other side of whatever wall they're planning. That's the point, isn't it?



I would agree a worthwhile & meaningful point of a forum like this is to discuss the metagame, the marketing, and not to partake. That's why I tell it like it is how trump's marketing won, how his constituents helped, what influences them, what they proclaim influences them & why, and hopefully how they can be better marketed to by a competitor. That last bit is rather key given you've seen the way they react to being told how it is.

It's an emotion state the public finds itself in, and doing a forensic analysis can't hurt. The question in my mind is if anyone in authority will likewise step back and try to see from the perspectives of voters including their opposition or dig in and do the wrong thing harder next time.

Time will tell I suppose.

 

[agent00f]

I'm not about to say that dems will still be there 4 years from now--that is a very long time--but if folks like agent and others prattle on about this nonsense without the slightest interest in self-reflection, you will be correct. But--it's only been a week. There is a lot of valid anger here and many are just slower at going through their phases of grief. Recall that for some months after November 2012, it was widely understood that the Republican party will never win the White House again unless they change their messaging. Well, here we are, and this dude sort of triple-downed on that inflmatory rhetoric.

It's really up to the DNC to do their job the next couple of months in selecting proper leadership and retooling their message. They lost their old-school base, which is very clear, and if they think it is because of "racism" then the dems deserve to lose going forward, much to this country's regret with a resurgent alt-right army of well, actual racists that feel legitimized by a Trump that should have easily lost with the support they gave him.

As outright stupid as Hillary's deplorables comment was in the pantheon of identically stupid comments from POTUS candidates (hell, Romney was actually nicer by only calling out 41%, lol), she was correct in thought but completely wrong in degree. Half of Trump's supporters is just completely ludicrous. It represents a level of cynicism that may be pervasive among the electorate, but it has no place in an elected official largely trying to run on a message of "making an already great country even better." So, Hillary: if this country really is already great, then why are you calling half of this guy's supporters unapologetic racists? And the way his supporters flipped that around as a badge of honor with their schwag. Lol-what a disaster.

I think that in the end, the dems just need to get back to their ground and, quite frankly, see what this historically unpopular candidate manages to do while on the job. There is still a high probability that, if he follows through with only 30% of his promises, he will shoot himself in the foot with the majority of the public. If he follows through with none of them, he loses his diehard followers. He doesn't have a whole lot of friends in the GOP, so there is a real chance of some coalition between dems and moderate republicans to get shit done. Imagine that: the most divisive assclown in US history is needed to actually get those idiots working together again.

Interesting times...

Your approach of spoiling the brat is what led to this, and I'm pretty sure doing more of the same won't unspoil them. Spoiled brats do what they did, join with a even bigger spoiled brat to pick on the less fortunate. Sometimes it's hard for folks with parental instincts to hear this about their spawn.

 

[lopri]

I have not followed this thread but I think this essay is on topic. I think the liberals should read it carefully and think about it critically.

The smug style in American liberalism

But even as many have come around to the notion that Trump is the prohibitive favorite for his party's nomination, the smug interpretation has been predictable: We only underestimated how hateful, how stupid, the Republican base can be.

Trump capturing the nomination will not dispel the smug style; if anything, it will redouble it. Faced with the prospect of an election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the smug will reach a fever pitch: six straight months of a sure thing, an opportunity to mock and scoff and ask, How could anybody vote for this guy? until a morning in November when they ask, What the fuck happened?

The essay was published on Apr 21, 2016.

 

[agent00f]

I have not followed this thread but I think this essay is on topic. I think the liberals should read it carefully and think about it critically.

The smug style in American liberalism



The essay was published on Apr 21, 2016.

I think this makes for a pretty good example of what's wrong with liberals in a much broader sense, and it's something conservatism got right: liberals are weak/naive. They always rather assume people are good & stupid instead of selfish & cunning. As a first example, even though they clearly lost due to relatively few rust belt rednecks riled up by measurably off the charts racial resentment & other effective agitprop, they're more than ready to accept all sorts of fault rather than deal with that propaganda gap directly.

Then let's examine the claim itself, that these folks voted for trump because liberals are mean. It literally makes no sense given the respective natures of the candidates. Rather it's obviously just scapegoating the aspect of someone you dislike, eg. "you didn't win the raffle because you have dirty socks". But again it's revealing that had they lost you would never see this cuck navel gazing from the conservatives, and that's why they won with their new rust belt friends.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not about to say that dems will still be there 4 years from now--that is a very long time--but if folks like agent and others prattle on about this nonsense without the slightest interest in self-reflection, you will be correct. But--it's only been a week. There is a lot of valid anger here and many are just slower at going through their phases of grief. Recall that for some months after November 2012, it was widely understood that the Republican party will never win the White House again unless they change their messaging. Well, here we are, and this dude sort of triple-downed on that inflmatory rhetoric.

It's really up to the DNC to do their job the next couple of months in selecting proper leadership and retooling their message. They lost their old-school base, which is very clear, and if they think it is because of "racism" then the dems deserve to lose going forward, much to this country's regret with a resurgent alt-right army of well, actual racists that feel legitimized by a Trump that should have easily lost with the support they gave him.

As outright stupid as Hillary's deplorables comment was in the pantheon of identically stupid comments from POTUS candidates (hell, Romney was actually nicer by only calling out 41%, lol), she was correct in thought but completely wrong in degree. Half of Trump's supporters is just completely ludicrous. It represents a level of cynicism that may be pervasive among the electorate, but it has no place in an elected official largely trying to run on a message of "making an already great country even better." So, Hillary: if this country really is already great, then why are you calling half of this guy's supporters unapologetic racists? And the way his supporters flipped that around as a badge of honor with their schwag. Lol-what a disaster.

I think that in the end, the dems just need to get back to their ground and, quite frankly, see what this historically unpopular candidate manages to do while on the job. There is still a high probability that, if he follows through with only 30% of his promises, he will shoot himself in the foot with the majority of the public. If he follows through with none of them, he loses his diehard followers. He doesn't have a whole lot of friends in the GOP, so there is a real chance of some coalition between dems and moderate republicans to get shit done. Imagine that: the most divisive assclown in US history is needed to actually get those idiots working together again.

Interesting times...

So wait, it was widely understood in 2012 that Republicans had to change their message or lose and that didn't happen...therefore in 2016 Democrats have to change their message or lose?

I don't know what the right answer is but I don't think that makes sense.

 

[shady28]

So wait, it was widely understood in 2012 that Republicans had to change their message or lose and that didn't happen...therefore in 2016 Democrats have to change their message or lose?

I don't know what the right answer is but I don't think that makes sense.

If you think that Donald Trump did not change the GOP message, you're hopelessly ignorant.

But lets be real, you're not ignorant, you're just partisan and pushing a false narrative.

Trump has effectively canned TPP as PEOTUS, not even in office.

Trump is talking about re-negotiating NAFTA.

Trump is anti-globalist.

Trump wants to secure the border and stop illegal immigration.

Trump wants to stop corporate abuse of the visa programs, like the H1B, where foreign nationals are frequently trained by American workers to replace their own jobs.

Trump is pushing massive infrastructure renovation plans.

The above are significant directional changes for the GOP, many co-opted concerns of the working class that Democrats ignored or only pandered to with no substance for the past 25 years.

No traditional GOP candidate would ever get on stage and do this :

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So wait, it was widely understood in 2012 that Republicans had to change their message or lose and that didn't happen...therefore in 2016 Democrats have to change their message or lose?

I don't know what the right answer is but I don't think that makes sense.

You don't think that Donald Trump changed the message of the Republicans in 2016 ?

 

[fskimospy]

If you think that Donald Trump did not change the GOP message, you're hopelessly ignorant.

But lets be real, you're not ignorant, you're just partisan and pushing a false narrative.

Trump has effectively canned TPP as PEOTUS, not even in office.

Trump is talking about re-negotiating NAFTA.

Trump is anti-globalist.

Trump wants to secure the border and stop illegal immigration.

Trump wants to stop corporate abuse of the visa programs, like the H1B, where foreign nationals are frequently trained by American workers to replace their own jobs.

Trump is pushing massive infrastructure renovation plans.

The above are significant directional changes for the GOP, many co-opted concerns of the working class that Democrats ignored or only pandered to with no substance for the past 25 years.

No traditional GOP candidate would ever get on stage and do this :

You need to go back and read my post again.

Always funny to see stupid people not read and then declare other people to be ignorant though, haha.

 

[shady28]

So wait, it was widely understood in 2012 that Republicans had to change their message or lose and that didn't happen...therefore in 2016 Democrats have to change their message or lose?

I don't know what the right answer is but I don't think that makes sense.

You need to go back and read my post again.

Always funny to see stupid people not read and then declare other people to be ignorant though, haha.

Backtracking again fskimospy?

Trump has changed the GOP message, period.

But I am perfectly ok to watch Dems continue down the path of race-baiting and name calling along with hissy-fit protests and sit-ins when they don't get their way. It would be preferable to have a real 2nd party, but I am also ok with the GOP being the workers party.

 

[fskimospy]

Backtracking again fskimospy?

Trump has changed the GOP message, period.

But I am perfectly ok to watch Dems continue down the path of race-baiting and name calling along with hissy-fit protests and sit-ins when they don't get their way.

I was calling out zinfamous's post for being internally inconsistent, not saying that I believed Trump didn't change their message.

Time for you to backtrack?

 

[shady28]

I was calling out zinfamous's post for being internally inconsistent, not saying that I believed Trump didn't change their message.

Time for you to backtrack?

If that's the way you meant it, apologies.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you think that Donald Trump did not change the GOP message, you're hopelessly ignorant.

But lets be real, you're not ignorant, you're just partisan and pushing a false narrative.

Trump has effectively canned TPP as PEOTUS, not even in office.

Trump is talking about re-negotiating NAFTA.

Trump is anti-globalist.

Trump wants to secure the border and stop illegal immigration.

Trump wants to stop corporate abuse of the visa programs, like the H1B, where foreign nationals are frequently trained by American workers to replace their own jobs.

Trump is pushing massive infrastructure renovation plans.

The above are significant directional changes for the GOP, many co-opted concerns of the working class that Democrats ignored or only pandered to with no substance for the past 25 years.

No traditional GOP candidate would ever get on stage and do this :

The most interesting part is your belief that any of Trump's promises will come true or that fulfilling them will make a difference in the lives of his voters.

Yeh, sure, he's telling you what you want to hear- he's always been good at that. Lots of people have believed him. It's how he got to where he is today. The real question is "What did they get?"

The answer should give you pause. Obviously, that's not happening.

 

[michal1980]

If that's the way you meant it, apologies.

that's not what he meant.

he got caught lying again, and now he is once again backpedaling.

 

[agent00f]

that's not what he meant.

he got caught lying again, and now he is once again backpedaling.

Amusing coming from someone who still can't figure out what he's talking about.

 

[fskimospy]

that's not what he meant.

he got caught lying again, and now he is once again backpedaling.

Of course that's what I meant. Why else would I put 'that doesn't make sense' at the end of my post?

You are seriously so, so stupid.

 

[compuwiz1]

The other night I was sitting at my kitchen table working on a project and the TV was on. I heard Christiane Amanpour of CNN say something about the audacity of Trump going around the media and speaking directly to the American people. I guess she was unhappy because they didn't get to filter and spin the news to their liking. lol

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The other night I was sitting at my kitchen table working on a project and the TV was on. I heard Christiane Amanpour of CNN say something about the audacity of Trump going around the media and speaking directly to the American people. I guess she was unhappy because they didn't get to filter and spin the news to their liking. lol

The mainstream media is so angry that they have become powerless in the new media era. They basically blew their wad against Nominee Trump and now they're pretty damn irrelevant. Their goons in the pundit line are also feeling the loss of power and it infuriates them.

 

[agent00f]

The mainstream media is so angry that they have become powerless in the new media era. They basically blew their wad against Nominee Trump and now they're pretty damn irrelevant. Their goons in the pundit line are also feeling the loss of power and it infuriates them.

Makes sense trump's people would brag about disinformation and dishonesty.

 

[OrByte]

The mainstream media is so angry that they have become powerless in the new media era. They basically blew their wad against Nominee Trump and now they're pretty damn irrelevant. Their goons in the pundit line are also feeling the loss of power and it infuriates them.

One of the biggest dangers we face is this idea that the media has become powerless.

Do NOT normalize what Trump is doing when it comes to the media, it is not a NORMAL thing for a President to hold the media in such callous disregard. No matter your politics, journalism does exist and real journalism is a necessary component of governance, it is a 'check and balance' system that we rely on when there is no voice for regular people in America.

Please do not buy into this idea that Twitter and social media is the "new media era" Twitter is not journalism.