3 ms·

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 disagre

by 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.
- knz 10y ago
  > 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. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/21/fact-check-trump-overstates-crowd-size-at-inaugural.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/21/fact-check-trump-overst... http://www.wsj.com/video/white-house-disputes-inauguration-crowd-estimates/766DA5D7-6DB1-4928-BE97-25BC3FC9A313.html http://www.wsj.com/video/white-house-disputes-inauguration-c... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707722 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707722 http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510994742/trump-administration-goes-to-war-with-the-media-over-inauguration-crowd-size http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510994742/trump-administration... The inauguration photo debate is a litmus test for the credibility of the administration and it's ability to tell the truth. We will have to agree to disagree on all of the other points.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    the whole inauguration crowd debacle strikes me as ridiculous. We know Trump is a man with an ego, he made a claim that the crowd was big, it wasn't as big as he thought, the media starts whipping up a frenzy about how it proves we live in a "post-fact" world. Then, the media started throwing up photos from earlier in the day to show that the crowd was tiny, when there are other photos that show a bigger crowd, for example: https://i0.wp.com/www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Real-Inauguration-Crowd-Size-vs-FAKE-NEWS.jpg https://i0.wp.com/www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/u... The real story here, in my opinion, is how both sides respectively exaggerated and underrepresented the size of the crowd (unimportant), and the media spun it into a narrative that was very clearly designed to invoke 1984-esque ideas that the party can declare that 2+2=5 and it becomes the truth. Also, your decision to "agree to disagree" on everything I've said strikes me as unhelpful. Rather than flesh out why you disagree with, for example, established facts like that poor whites largely voted Trump, you refuse to engage? If you wish to critique my argument then you should be expecting me to counter your critique.
    - knz 10y ago

by knz 10y ago

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.

knz 10y ago
> 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. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/21/fact-check-trump-overstates-crowd-size-at-inaugural.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/21/fact-check-trump-overst... http://www.wsj.com/video/white-house-disputes-inauguration-crowd-estimates/766DA5D7-6DB1-4928-BE97-25BC3FC9A313.html http://www.wsj.com/video/white-house-disputes-inauguration-c... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707722 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707722 http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510994742/trump-administration-goes-to-war-with-the-media-over-inauguration-crowd-size http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510994742/trump-administration... The inauguration photo debate is a litmus test for the credibility of the administration and it's ability to tell the truth. We will have to agree to disagree on all of the other points.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  the whole inauguration crowd debacle strikes me as ridiculous. We know Trump is a man with an ego, he made a claim that the crowd was big, it wasn't as big as he thought, the media starts whipping up a frenzy about how it proves we live in a "post-fact" world. Then, the media started throwing up photos from earlier in the day to show that the crowd was tiny, when there are other photos that show a bigger crowd, for example: https://i0.wp.com/www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Real-Inauguration-Crowd-Size-vs-FAKE-NEWS.jpg https://i0.wp.com/www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/u... The real story here, in my opinion, is how both sides respectively exaggerated and underrepresented the size of the crowd (unimportant), and the media spun it into a narrative that was very clearly designed to invoke 1984-esque ideas that the party can declare that 2+2=5 and it becomes the truth. Also, your decision to "agree to disagree" on everything I've said strikes me as unhelpful. Rather than flesh out why you disagree with, for example, established facts like that poor whites largely voted Trump, you refuse to engage? If you wish to critique my argument then you should be expecting me to counter your critique.
  - knz 10y ago