Trump and Staff Rethink Tactics After Stumbles

[txradioguy]

You do not think the New York Times is our enemy?   What is it that you do think of them?

No I don't.

I think they present the news from a Liberal point of view.  Even their alleged "Conservative" David From is a Liberal. I know that going in whenever I read an article from them...same as I do the other way when I read Fox or Daily caller.

I take all news from any outlet with a grain of salt.

Liberals, FR and DU keep enemies lists...Liberals are the masters of the "us versus them game"...for Conservatives to begin to see things from as @CatherineofAragon called it "a Tribal mentality" is dangerous and wrong.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't. They are many things, but not our enemy.

A criticism I have always had with George HW Bush was articulated by one of his Republican Allies in Congress.  (I forgot who said it.)   


"George Bush is not only not sure where the battle lines are,   he isn't even aware he's in a war. "


Pretty much summed up the major thing wrong with George HW Bush. 

[ABX]

And what sort of person promulgates his enemies propaganda?   

All news is propaganda to some extent, be it New York Times, Breitbart, Fox, or CNN. It is made to reinforce the beliefs of the audience it wants to attract to keep eyes on advertisers. In other words, it is all slanted and all manipulative, even the outlets that reinforce your beliefs.

It is up to the reader or watcher to use critical thinking and find the truth behind the propaganda. Never blindly accept or reject it just because you think it reinforces or opposes your belief system. Otherwise you get into a confirmation bias situation and you end up believing 'alternative facts' simply because you want to, not because they are true.

[DiogenesLamp]

No I don't.

I think they present the news from a Liberal point of view.  Even their alleged "Conservative" David From is a Liberal. I know that going in whenever I read an article from them...same as I do the other way when I read Fox or Daily caller.

I take all news from any outlet with a grain of salt.

Liberals, FR and DU keep enemies lists...Liberals are the masters of the "us versus them game"...for Conservatives to begin to see things from as @CatherineofAragon called it "a Tribal mentality" is dangerous and wrong.

And people wonder why moderates always get their @$$$ handed to them. 



"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."


The Los Angeles Times has a video of Obama praising a Palestinian activist at a dinner in his behalf.   They refused to let anyone see the tape,  but people who were at the dinner assert that Obama said some things that would have heavily damaged his campaign had proof of it gotten out. 


Conceivably it would have cost him the election,  and that is precisely why the Los Angeles Times has refused to let anyone see it.   So in effect,   they censored news to help this horrible man win a position of power from whence he has committed all sorts of destruction and set the stage for much future loss of life.   

The New York Times is exactly the same,   they just weren't in a position to help in the manner that the Los Angeles Times did.   


The bloodshed and destruction that shall be the eventual legacy of Barack Obama was enabled by these "media"  agencies,   and you don't think they ought to be regarded as enemies?   


Did I mention the New York Times helped to cover up the murders of 20-30 million people? 

How much would communism have been curtailed subsequent to the 1930s had the New York Times told the truth of what was happening under the Communist state back then?   

Would Truman have sent the troop transport Aircraft to Chiang Kai Sheck to intercept Mao's "Long March"?      Had someone told him how murderous were the communists would that have caused the United States to throw in with the Nationalists against they Communists,  and thereby saved the lives of 100 million people  murdered by Mao?   


Acting as a propaganda organ for the Socialist state has contributed to a massive body count.
 Of course "Tribalism"  is apparently the greater sin,  I suppose.   

[DiogenesLamp]

All news is propaganda to some extent, be it New York Times, Breitbart, Fox, or CNN. It is made to reinforce the beliefs of the audience it wants to attract to keep eyes on advertisers. In other words, it is all slanted and all manipulative, even the outlets that reinforce your beliefs.

Well certainly much of what we are seeing now is,   but I do not take this as proof that it must always be thus. 

It is up to the reader or watcher to use critical thinking and find the truth behind the propaganda. Never blindly accept or reject it just because you think it reinforces or opposes your belief system. Otherwise you get into a confirmation bias situation and you end up believing 'alternative facts' simply because you want to, not because they are true.

Cause once in awhile Goebbels is going to give you some accurate information.   


Yes,  we should certainly heed the screeches of a propaganda source demonizing the man they hate anyways  because there might be a pearl of wisdom in their somewhere if we can but wade through all the dreck to find it.   


Meanwhile there are other news sources that are not explicitly leftists.    Why people think we should go to those other poisoned founts i simply do not comprehend.   As a tactical matter, giving them page hits makes money for them,   and I certainly do not see why we should be funding our oppositions propaganda corps. 

[r9etb]

Good.  I find that encouraging.   I've noticed that there are several people on this website whom I regard as consistently wrong in their thinking and analysis.   They do serve a useful function as reverse barometers. 


When they start to agree with me,  i'll have to question my thinking.

How interesting.  Really.

[txradioguy]

And people wonder why moderates always get their @$$$ handed to them. 



"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."


The Los Angeles Times has a video of Obama praising a Palestinian activist at a dinner in his behalf.   They refused to let anyone see the tape,  but people who were at the dinner assert that Obama said some things that would have heavily damaged his campaign had proof of it gotten out. 


Conceivably it would have cost him the election,  and that is precisely why the Los Angeles Times has refused to let anyone see it.   So in effect,   they censored news to help this horrible man win a position of power from whence he has committed all sorts of destruction and set the stage for much future loss of life.   

The New York Times is exactly the same,   they just weren't in a position to help in the manner that the Los Angeles Times did.   


The bloodshed and destruction that shall be the eventual legacy of Barack Obama was enabled by these "media"  agencies,   and you don't think they ought to be regarded as enemies?   


Did I mention the New York Times helped to cover up the murders of 20-30 million people? 

How much would communism have been curtailed subsequent to the 1930s had the New York Times told the truth of what was happening under the Communist state back then?   

Would Truman have sent the troop transport Aircraft to Chiang Kai Sheck to intercept Mao's "Long March"?      Had someone told him how murderous were the communists would that have caused the United States to throw in with the Nationalists against they Communists,  and thereby saved the lives of 100 million people  murdered by Mao?   


Acting as a propaganda organ for the Socialist state has contributed to a massive body count.
 Of course "Tribalism"  is apparently the greater sin,  I suppose.

Great...so now if I don't buy into your Marx like statements about "smashing the liberal media" and riling up the Proletariat against the elite I'm a moderate?

Everything you're talking about in reference to the NY Times...is really old and already known to people that have paid attention to the media.


What's funny is that while you rail against the well know well documented bias of places like the NY Times and the LA Times...you buy 100% into the propaganda that was spewed unabashedly during the campaign by Drudge...Fox News...Gateway Pundit etc for Trump.

You seem to have no problem with propaganda when it's coming from your side.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No I don't.

I think they present the news from a Liberal point of view.  Even their alleged "Conservative" David From is a Liberal. I know that going in whenever I read an article from them...same as I do the other way when I read Fox or Daily caller.

I take all news from any outlet with a grain of salt.

Their bias isn't a problem if the person reading it is educated and aware of that bias.  The problem is that a great many ordinary people who are not political junkies are not as aware of that bias, and so are much more susceptible to its influence.  That needs to be counteracted, and I'm not sure how to do that other than actively, aggressively, and publicly challenging that bias.  That's really the only way to make a lot of ordinary people aware of it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Their bias isn't a problem if the person reading it is educated and aware of that bias.  The problem is that a great many ordinary people who are not political junkies are not as aware of that bias, and so are much more susceptible to its influence.  That needs to be counteracted, and I'm not sure how to do that other than actively, aggressively, and publicly challenging that bias.  That's really the only way to make a lot of ordinary people aware of it.

Thank you.   It is a breath of fresh air to see someone that is not only aware of the situation,  but also knows how to think rationally. 


Anybody can spew emotional rants.   (Usually of the "virtue signaling"  variety.)   

[txradioguy]

Thank you.   It is a breath of fresh air to see someone that is not only aware of the situation,  but also knows how to think rationally. 


Anybody can spew emotional rants.   (Usually of the "virtue signaling"  variety.)

You mean like the ones you've been posting?

[geronl]

Donald Trump Reportedly Signed Executive Order Without Knowing Exactly What It Did

He spent his whole life doing that.

[r9etb]

You mean like the ones you've been posting?

[musiclady]

http://www.mediaite.com/print/donald-trump-reportedly-signed-executive-order-without-knowing-exactly-what-it-did/
Donald Trump Reportedly Signed Executive Order Without Knowing Exactly What It Did

This is the problem here.  He hasn't got a clue as to what a President can and cannot do because he knows nothing about the Constitution.  He does things for show, and not for substance.

And he will function in this willy nilly manner until he becomes educated about what his job really is.

And since he is a narcissist, he is uneducable.

The next four years will be very difficult......

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You mean like the ones you've been posting?

What? Are you saying Diogenes isn't a paradigm of rational, calm thinking?

[txradioguy]

Their bias isn't a problem if the person reading it is educated and aware of that bias.  The problem is that a great many ordinary people who are not political junkies are not as aware of that bias, and so are much more susceptible to its influence.  That needs to be counteracted, and I'm not sure how to do that other than actively, aggressively, and publicly challenging that bias.  That's really the only way to make a lot of ordinary people aware of it.

There are better and smarter ways to counter it than hysterically shouting that we must "punish" the left wing media or that we should "crush them" as has been suggested here.

More and more "ordinary people" are aware these days thanks to the Internet.  I mean if it weren't for the 'Net and some folks at FR...we would have believed even today that President Bush skipped out on his Guard Drills.  But the lie was discovered and the person reporting it was sent away in disgrace.

The smart way is to challenge them on the facts.  Be proactive don't always play defense and wait for the MSM to make the claim and then react.

But you do it in an intelligent and rational way. 

And quite honestly more than part of our problem is the people elected to represent us and how they behave in front of a camera. 

Reagan didn't have the internet...Fox News...Drudge Report Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin to sell his policies to the public...and yet the two biggest electoral victories in our country's history belong to him.

That was in 1980 and 1984.

It's 2017...The problem isn't the messenger...

[txradioguy]

What? Are you saying Diogenes isn't a paradigm of rational, calm thinking?

 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

That needs to be counteracted, and I'm not sure how to do that other than actively, aggressively, and publicly challenging that bias. 

Right, because screaming about globalism and liberal bias 24/7 will surely convince them. Or Trump tweeting like a loon.

[EC]

What? Are you saying Diogenes isn't a paradigm of rational, calm thinking?

I think someone forgot to light him. 

[r9etb]

And quite honestly more than part of our problem is the people elected to represent us and how they behave in front of a camera. 

And ... elected (or mindlessly supported) precisely because of how they behave in front of a camera.

[txradioguy]

And ... elected (or mindlessly supported) precisely because of how they behave in front of a camera.

Yes there is that as well.