3 ms·

There are some huge assumptions and obvious bias in this statement... I agree that both sides would benefit from learning about what the other side values beyo

by knz 10y ago

There are some huge assumptions and obvious bias in this statement... I agree that both sides would benefit from learning about what the other side values beyond the sound bites but part of the reason "liberals" are pushing back is because of the outrageous behavior of the Trump administration in regards to blatant lies and an apparent policy of reform through dismantlement (c.f. some of his cabinet picks and their lack of qualifications/pedigree for the position). If conservatives want better understanding then they should act more moderately. There is a massive double standard by conservatives/Trump supporters in regards to issues like executive orders, presidential vacations, adultery by politicians, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and congressional investigations. If you want more understanding then stop pushing a divide and conquer agenda.

beaconstudios 10y ago
I've followed the reporting on both Trump's campaign and presidency, and have attempted to follow both sides of the aisle. While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical. I think the most overt example I can show you, that you can't argue against whatever your political position may be, is this clip of Chris Cuomo of CNN claiming that it is illegal for viewers to read the Clinton emails themselves and that all opinions must be pre-approved by the media: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_... this is but one of many, many overt lies and untruths that the media has told over the last year to attempt to construct a narrative about who Trump is and what he stands for. Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes.
- knz 10y ago
  Respectfully.... > While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and still blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government. > Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives. > The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt, doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for special interests? I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc? (Typing on mobile so apologize for typos and errors!)
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    > I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and still blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government. Simply invoking "liar" is not in itself important unless you point to an instance of a lie and a reliable non-partisan source that disproves it. That might be a high barrier for agreement but partisanship has reached toxic levels in the past few years. > And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives. You realise it's largely the poor that voted him in? Poor white communities use the most welfare and they voted for Trump en masse. Perhaps it's because dignified people don't want to live on welfare, but want to have a job and contribute to society? > Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt, doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for special interests? That's a burden of proof fallacy. The onus is on you to show that the administration is corrupt, has massive conflicts of interest and is business as usual for special interests. Simply going against your own political beliefs is not evidence of this either - for example, Trump wanting to improve relations with Russia is not evidence that Putin put him in the White House. > I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc? Management of Trump's brand umbrella has been handed off to Ivanka for his time in the White House. You could argue that anyone who owns any company at all is potentially making corrupt dealings if they land in the White House - that doesn't justify making them detach permanently from their life's work. I'm not aware of any calls from his supporters to divest - only the opposition, who have been throwing so many accusations at him as to render their voice moot. Throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks does not lend itself towards being considered reasonably.

by knz 10y ago

beaconstudios 10y ago

I've followed the reporting on both Trump's campaign and presidency, and have attempted to follow both sides of the aisle. While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical. I think the most overt example I can show you, that you can't argue against whatever your political position may be, is this clip of Chris Cuomo of CNN claiming that it is illegal for viewers to read the Clinton emails themselves and that all opinions must be pre-approved by the media: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_... this is but one of many, many overt lies and untruths that the media has told over the last year to attempt to construct a narrative about who Trump is and what he stands for. Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes.

knz 10y ago
Respectfully.... > While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and still blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government. > Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives. > The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt, doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for special interests? I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc? (Typing on mobile so apologize for typos and errors!)
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  > I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and still blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government. Simply invoking "liar" is not in itself important unless you point to an instance of a lie and a reliable non-partisan source that disproves it. That might be a high barrier for agreement but partisanship has reached toxic levels in the past few years. > And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives. You realise it's largely the poor that voted him in? Poor white communities use the most welfare and they voted for Trump en masse. Perhaps it's because dignified people don't want to live on welfare, but want to have a job and contribute to society? > Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt, doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for special interests? That's a burden of proof fallacy. The onus is on you to show that the administration is corrupt, has massive conflicts of interest and is business as usual for special interests. Simply going against your own political beliefs is not evidence of this either - for example, Trump wanting to improve relations with Russia is not evidence that Putin put him in the White House. > I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc? Management of Trump's brand umbrella has been handed off to Ivanka for his time in the White House. You could argue that anyone who owns any company at all is potentially making corrupt dealings if they land in the White House - that doesn't justify making them detach permanently from their life's work. I'm not aware of any calls from his supporters to divest - only the opposition, who have been throwing so many accusations at him as to render their voice moot. Throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks does not lend itself towards being considered reasonably.