A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
How wonderful for America that its potential first female president has to be perfect or become a failure. It's like what women run into in any job ever.
"Hey lady, if you just behaved, maybe your husband the media will stop treating you so badly."
I know that is not what that article or Elki is saying, but that is the kind of vibe I get sometimes.
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
Or we could actually hold the press accountable for pushing gooseshit narratives and falling for access journalism.
A world where you can seriously hope for a fundamental shift in a vast and decentralized media apparatus and the way 300 million people interact with it in a way that is to your liking is the same world where Jill Stein can count herself to have a real shot at the presidency.
Everyone, including the media, is getting pretty pissed about what has happened with Trump. I'm crossing my fingers that there might actually be some change here.
As much as pessimism is apparently our default state, things do change, and there are a lot of factors at work today that could potentially reshape the media very thoroughly over the next couple of decades. The next generation does not interact with the news in anywhere near the same way as the ones before it did.
They got pissed because he took it too far in his war with them. There are some political benefits in being the anti-media candidate, but it can backfire if they decide that their position is "fuck you too." Nothing changed about the how the media worked, and the spat might only be a short term one.
It will change in the future, because of technology. But the change has nothing to do with a new generation's desire for a media that will be inherently Clinton friendly or truth friendly. If there's one thing I can think of to characterize it would be social-bubble friendly.
it's not really fair to bag on a teenager for having bad opinions, but
this is what you were voting for, wasn't it? Can't really be mad about it now
There's a lot of people who expect Trump to be overstating his convictions and positions in order to appease some portions of the party and gain the votes, and they don't believe his talk about him not being a typical politician. They expect that like most politicians he's just saying what he needs to get some votes and he'll pull back as time goes on. You can see it in every Trump supporter who is confronted with the worst aspects of Trumpyness by reporters and comedians alike, and who responds that that's not "what he's really going to be like".
So as soon as they are confronted, in person, with the reality that "No, this is the monster you created, this is the guy who's going to be the living embodiment of all of your party's competing ideas and issues because he'll do anything for money or fame", they're shocked.
I don't think those people need to be pitied, I think they need to be studied so that we can weaponize the effect.
Today in white supremacist campaigns, Trump campaign kicks out Indian supporter who cast his primary vote for Trump. Now reconsidering.
So this guy was completely OK with all the racism until it affected him personally.
This is my hugely sympathetic face.
He does sound like a normal Republican though. He should probably just suck it up and vote Trump.
I'm not sure I'd characterize it as such. A lot of immigrants and children of immigrants just have no racism sensor. Up here too, a lot of immigrants hear our Conservatives talk about "real honest, hard-working Canadians" and they don't realise that those words aren't describing them. Unless, you know, they want them to and will vote for the Conservatives, in which case they totally do.
If he somehow missed the nakedly anti-immigrant sentiment of the Trump campaign up to that point he is either completely stupid or completely OK with racism as long as it's against Mexicans, Arabs, or other people who aren't Indian.
In both cases: fuck him
I think this is a pretty harsh stance to take on the kid, he just didn't realize that The Other included him.
I can see how that realization could really shatter your understanding of the world and make you think more critically about what people like Trump are really motivated by.
What? That is, if anything, one of the least charitable interpretations, that the kid thinks it's okay to shit on The Other so long as The Other isn't him. That's absolutely "Fuck you" territory. That's "it's okay to punch somebody if that somebody isn't you," which we're sorta supposed to grow out of by the age of 4.
If he didn't see it at all or didn't realise it was real or whatever, at least we'd be past that elementally low bar of human morality and relations.
hippofant on
+2
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited August 2016
Sigh. I hate to see that Trump is actually moving up slightly in polls-only. It's because he's kept a sock in it for the past week or so, probably. Good news is that he can't keep it up forever, eventually he's going to say something about Hillary's wherever.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
On the other hand, like it's important not just to be ethical, but to always appear ethical. That's something that is true of EVERY president, and something that Obama was masterful at.
I don't think Clinton's corrupt, but she has made some choices that she really should have foreseen would be used as a political bludgeon. We can condemn most of those attacks while also occasionally getting annoyed at Clinton for making things easier on her opposition.
I mean, you think if X Republican Candidate had delivered a bunch of closed door meetings to Wall Street the democrats wouldn't be ragging on it just as much? Of course we would!
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Today in white supremacist campaigns, Trump campaign kicks out Indian supporter who cast his primary vote for Trump. Now reconsidering.
So this guy was completely OK with all the racism until it affected him personally.
This is my hugely sympathetic face.
He does sound like a normal Republican though. He should probably just suck it up and vote Trump.
I agree with this in principle, but the kid is only 18. This is probably the biggest exposure to this kind of rhetoric in his life.
So while I agree that people who go GOP until it affects them personally don't get much sympathy, young adults still learning get some leeway with me as they are still adapting to the realities of the world.
I blame his parents more.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Like, even with some media outlets that are still following along with Trump's game, there are an awful lot who have been very clearly shaken by how Trump has manipulated them and are at least starting to become aware of what has gone on to get us here, and some of these are even conservative pundits.
When this election is all done with there's going to be a lot of room for some serious media introspection to go on. I can't say for certain that it's actually going to happen and not instead be blithely forgotten in favor of maintaining the status quo, but everyone is agreed that this election is a total circus and I don't think we're going to forget it quickly. Young people today are going to look at this and seriously consider "how can we not have that happen again?"
Sigh. I hate to see that Trump is actually moving up slightly in polls-only. It's because he's kept a sock in it for the past week or so, probably. Good news is that he can't keep it up forever, eventually he's going to say something about Hillary's wherever.
It's mostly the Pew poll that changed its methodology (included Stein for the first time).
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Today in white supremacist campaigns, Trump campaign kicks out Indian supporter who cast his primary vote for Trump. Now reconsidering.
So this guy was completely OK with all the racism until it affected him personally.
This is my hugely sympathetic face.
He does sound like a normal Republican though. He should probably just suck it up and vote Trump.
I'm not sure I'd characterize it as such. A lot of immigrants and children of immigrants just have no racism sensor. Up here too, a lot of immigrants hear our Conservatives talk about "real honest, hard-working Canadians" and they don't realise that those words aren't describing them. Unless, you know, they want them to and will vote for the Conservatives, in which case they totally do.
If he somehow missed the nakedly anti-immigrant sentiment of the Trump campaign up to that point he is either completely stupid or completely OK with racism as long as it's against Mexicans, Arabs, or other people who aren't Indian.
In both cases: fuck him
I think this is a pretty harsh stance to take on the kid, he just didn't realize that The Other included him.
I can see how that realization could really shatter your understanding of the world and make you think more critically about what people like Trump are really motivated by.
What? That is, if anything, one of the least charitable interpretations, that the kid thinks it's okay to shit on The Other so long as The Other isn't him. That's absolutely "Fuck you" territory. That's "it's okay to punch somebody if that somebody isn't you," which we're sorta supposed to grow out of by the age of 4.
If he didn't see it at all or didn't realise it was real or whatever, at least we'd be past that elementally low bar of human morality and relations.
As in, the kid thought The Other was a legitimate evil threat after listening to GOP rhetoric, and he didn't realize that they're actually people like him too until put into the position to sympathize with them. As sad as this is to say that's an entirely natural way to view the world and most people don't realize they're doing it all the time.
Today in white supremacist campaigns, Trump campaign kicks out Indian supporter who cast his primary vote for Trump. Now reconsidering.
So this guy was completely OK with all the racism until it affected him personally.
This is my hugely sympathetic face.
He does sound like a normal Republican though. He should probably just suck it up and vote Trump.
I'm not sure I'd characterize it as such. A lot of immigrants and children of immigrants just have no racism sensor. Up here too, a lot of immigrants hear our Conservatives talk about "real honest, hard-working Canadians" and they don't realise that those words aren't describing them. Unless, you know, they want them to and will vote for the Conservatives, in which case they totally do.
If he somehow missed the nakedly anti-immigrant sentiment of the Trump campaign up to that point he is either completely stupid or completely OK with racism as long as it's against Mexicans, Arabs, or other people who aren't Indian.
In both cases: fuck him
I think this is a pretty harsh stance to take on the kid, he just didn't realize that The Other included him.
I can see how that realization could really shatter your understanding of the world and make you think more critically about what people like Trump are really motivated by.
What? That is, if anything, one of the least charitable interpretations, that the kid thinks it's okay to shit on The Other so long as The Other isn't him. That's absolutely "Fuck you" territory. That's "it's okay to punch somebody if that somebody isn't you," which we're sorta supposed to grow out of by the age of 4.
If he didn't see it at all or didn't realise it was real or whatever, at least we'd be past that elementally low bar of human morality and relations.
I think we may be going to far in analyzing this kid's thinking. He may not have thought anything beyond "Man this is exciting and it feels good to belong to something". Those feelings can shut of a whole lot of other parts of your brain, that's why cults exist.
I really liked how the coverage I saw about trump's claim that hillary/obama founded isis was always followed up with (they didn't) or something similar
I wish more coverage of lies would contain refutations immediately thereafter in the coverage
IE 'candidate so and so promised to do x today (illegal under current international law)' or 'person questions obama's place of birth (which has been verified by his certificate)' or whatever
Yeah there is a huge double standard in an election where the opposite party is running a racist who openly called for his opponent to be killed/jailed, its his opponent that has to really keep her nose clean by god.
This comment I found elsewhere sums up my feelings:
*eye roll* There have been many accusations, many smear campaigns, almost without exception ginned up each time she has run for office. None has ever been based on anything more than animus. The evidence, which is apparent to anyone that takes the time to read what she writes, listen to her talk, and look at her record, is that she is an exceptionally hard working, intelligent, compassionate woman who has devoted her life to public service and to reaching out to help other people.
It is time for the people with the "feelings" to realize they are based on nothing, and those who have notions to defend their claims
I find it really ironic that this is the narrative when the RNC candidate (besides being openly sexist and racist) has a long and well documented history of stiffing suppliers, looting businesses, promising charitable donations he never delivered, defrauding investors and struggling students, and apparently violating campaign finance laws as well as closely linking himself to people deeply implicated in furthering corrupt activities by Vladimir Putin. Not to mention there are serious questions to be asked about his own apparent desire to become one of Putin's puppets in office.
I really liked how the coverage I saw about trump's claim that hillary/obama founded isis was always followed up with (they didn't) or something similar
I wish more coverage of lies would contain refutations immediately thereafter in the coverage
IE 'candidate so and so promised to do x today (illegal under current international law)' or 'person questions obama's place of birth (which has been verified by his certificate)' or whatever
What I want to know is when the fuck the media at large is going to apologize for the birth certificate thing.
Like it was inexcusable on any level for anyone to spread that bullshit, and everyone who reported on it without pointing out how incredibly dumb it was on every level should be forced to acknowledge that doing so was a massive hit to their credibility as a news agency.
The location of today's "speech to black people" is again less than 1% black. Suuuuuuuuuper white suburb of Lansing.
Once again, a Trump speech targeting black people actually targets white people, both literally and figuratively.
Yeah I'm super hesitant to ascribe any kind of cunning to anything the Trump Campaign does at this point, but if this whole "you've got nothing left to lose" line is supposed to do something its to reassure white people that maybe he isn't that racist.
I really liked how the coverage I saw about trump's claim that hillary/obama founded isis was always followed up with (they didn't) or something similar
I wish more coverage of lies would contain refutations immediately thereafter in the coverage
IE 'candidate so and so promised to do x today (illegal under current international law)' or 'person questions obama's place of birth (which has been verified by his certificate)' or whatever
What I want to know is when the fuck the media at large is going to apologize for the birth certificate thing.
Like it was inexcusable on any level for anyone to spread that bullshit, and everyone who reported on it without pointing out how incredibly dumb it was on every level should be forced to acknowledge that doing so was a massive hit to their credibility as a news agency.
This will happen about the same time they stop treating Iraq War supporters as very serious people and those who opposed it as unserious hippies who cannot be trusted.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
On the other hand, like it's important not just to be ethical, but to always appear ethical. That's something that is true of EVERY president, and something that Obama was masterful at.
I don't think Clinton's corrupt, but she has made some choices that she really should have foreseen would be used as a political bludgeon. We can condemn most of those attacks while also occasionally getting annoyed at Clinton for making things easier on her opposition.
I mean, you think if X Republican Candidate had delivered a bunch of closed door meetings to Wall Street the democrats wouldn't be ragging on it just as much? Of course we would!
I agree. The problem for I see for Clinton is that for a significant part of the population, a woman running for president is itself unethical.
Personally I don't know of any instance that would make me question her ethics. Maybe I should. I probably should, because nobody is perfect. I asked in this thread for reasons to doubt Clinton, and the only thing that came up was the no fly zone in Syria. What that tells me is that sometimes she makes bad decisions, but she is not ethically suspect.
it's not really fair to bag on a teenager for having bad opinions, but
this is what you were voting for, wasn't it? Can't really be mad about it now
It's perfectly fine as long as you acknowledge that you yourself had a bevy of awful opinions when you were a teen yourself.
I know I can own up to that.
That's actually the reason I feel sorry for him.
It's the reason I don't feel sorry for him. These kinds of awakenings are, hopefully, what make us re-evaluate those awful opinions. They're necessary.
The question is, will he take a moment for self-reflection and adjust to the now-wider world, or closet off and double down? We'll probably never know.
Like, even with some media outlets that are still following along with Trump's game, there are an awful lot who have been very clearly shaken by how Trump has manipulated them and are at least starting to become aware of what has gone on to get us here, and some of these are even conservative pundits.
When this election is all done with there's going to be a lot of room for some serious media introspection to go on. I can't say for certain that it's actually going to happen and not instead be blithely forgotten in favor of maintaining the status quo, but everyone is agreed that this election is a total circus and I don't think we're going to forget it quickly. Young people today are going to look at this and seriously consider "how can we not have that happen again?"
if this were going to happen it would have happened already; a couple of the more rigorous 'traditional' media companies might change their behavior a bit in the long run (WaPo.)
trump in a lot of ways is the perfect candidate for modern media of all stripes: he's a never-ending font of cheap, outrage-inducing headlines. If Trump weren't running this year they'd have invented him before long.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Like, even with some media outlets that are still following along with Trump's game, there are an awful lot who have been very clearly shaken by how Trump has manipulated them and are at least starting to become aware of what has gone on to get us here, and some of these are even conservative pundits.
When this election is all done with there's going to be a lot of room for some serious media introspection to go on. I can't say for certain that it's actually going to happen and not instead be blithely forgotten in favor of maintaining the status quo, but everyone is agreed that this election is a total circus and I don't think we're going to forget it quickly. Young people today are going to look at this and seriously consider "how can we not have that happen again?"
if this were going to happen it would have happened already; a couple of the more rigorous 'traditional' media companies might change their behavior a bit in the long run (WaPo.)
trump in a lot of ways is the perfect candidate for modern media of all stripes: he's a never-ending font of cheap, outrage-inducing headlines. If Trump weren't running this year they'd have invented him before long.
Sigh. I hate to see that Trump is actually moving up slightly in polls-only. It's because he's kept a sock in it for the past week or so, probably. Good news is that he can't keep it up forever, eventually he's going to say something about Hillary's wherever.
I saw a snippet of CNN's coverage of his trip to Louisiana and it just really pissed me off that they were treating his visit as a normal legitimate presidential candidate
The idea that the news will allow him to pivot or accept his 'sorry you feel that way' apology and actually possibly let him get away with a new narrative just kind of sickens me. He deserves nothing but derision at all times. Any time he does something 'good' they should just relist all the shit hes said and done again. Gahhhh
We probably shouldn't be criticizing people for doing good things for mostly the right reasons, regardless of who they are or what they've done in the past. If someone is a horrible person, then them being hypocritical is a good thing, and if they're hypocritical enough for long enough they'll just wind up being a good person instead.
Young people today are going to look at this and seriously consider "how can we not have that happen again?"
And one possible outcome could be to destroy private press and freedom of press
I'm not seeing how "assess that perhaps things need to change" will automatically mean your preferred magical realist outcome where anti-intellectualism and the fracturing of narrative realities will inevitably disappear. Take a look at the GOP autopsy report for instance.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
+4
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
edited August 2016
ed: meh.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Show of hands who believes Trump would be in Louisiana today if he weren't running for President
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
+2
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I'm glad I caught up on this thread. Man.. the way NPR was talking, it sounded like Trump actually meant his regret and that Obama and Clinton really were taking a long time to get to Louisiana. There was no mention whatsoever of the governor asking them to hang back and get support.
Yeah there is a huge double standard in an election where the opposite party is running a racist who openly called for his opponent to be killed/jailed, its his opponent that has to really keep her nose clean by god.
This comment I found elsewhere sums up my feelings:
*eye roll* There have been many accusations, many smear campaigns, almost without exception ginned up each time she has run for office. None has ever been based on anything more than animus. The evidence, which is apparent to anyone that takes the time to read what she writes, listen to her talk, and look at her record, is that she is an exceptionally hard working, intelligent, compassionate woman who has devoted her life to public service and to reaching out to help other people.
It is time for the people with the "feelings" to realize they are based on nothing, and those who have notions to defend their claims
I find it really ironic that this is the narrative when the RNC candidate (besides being openly sexist and racist) has a long and well documented history of stiffing suppliers, looting businesses, promising charitable donations he never delivered, defrauding investors and struggling students, and apparently violating campaign finance laws as well as closely linking himself to people deeply implicated in furthering corrupt activities by Vladimir Putin. Not to mention there are serious questions to be asked about his own apparent desire to become one of Putin's puppets in office.
Sad as it is, likeability and trustworthyness are real things. Hilary IS an honest, skilled and dedicated politician. She just SEEMS kinda seedy. People have feelings about other people. If enough people have the same opinion, it becomes something you have to deal with. This isn't a man vs woman thing. Elizabeth Warren is trustworthy.
Many Republicans have the opinion climate change isn't real. Just because they are wrong doesn't mean it's any easier to pass environmental legislation.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Maybe you have to be logged in to Facebook. *shrug*
So, did Trump buy the toys? Or is he merely helping to very inefficiently unload that truck?
Being an extra pair of hands can be important in a disaster situation, even if you're just handing out toys. I'll give anyone props if they are willing to volunteer what they can to help.
Except Trump. Fucker has crossed too many too important lines. Also, I believe that most people would genuinely want to help when personally confronted with that kind of disaster, even politicians who are also looking for a good photo op. With Trump I'm certain he is callously using this disaster for his own ends and truly doesn't care. If I was the coordinator, I would be sorely tempted to tell Trump to fuck off.
As someone who volunteers weekly (most of the time) at a soup kitchen, no an extra pair of hands probably isn't important. The people who only show up on Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas do little more than actively slow down everything.
A disaster location is a different circumstance, but video of what he was actually doing show it likely impeded the efforts. Especially since it was just him, Pence, and the circus of security and media that are obliged to follow him. If he showed up with a few trailers of basic supplies and a local office full of staff and volunteers to spend the whole day doing stuff? That's probably helping more than hurting. Making a shitty bucket brigade of toys and then glad handing a few people? You just wasted 2 hours of everybody's life.
The Trump campaign seems to be the culmination of the right-wing media's 20-year quest to turn conservatism into a cult.
Indoctrinate followers with rigid dogma? check.
Isolate them from alternative viewpoints? check.
Establish yourself as the One And Only Voice of Truth? check.
Alienate everyone on the outside? check.
Cry persecution when anyone tries to shine a light inside? check.
Stockpile weapons for the prophesied battle with the evildoers? check.
When do the bulk orders for Kool-Aid go out?
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Posts
"Hey lady, if you just behaved, maybe your husband the media will stop treating you so badly."
I know that is not what that article or Elki is saying, but that is the kind of vibe I get sometimes.
Once again, a Trump speech targeting black people actually targets white people, both literally and figuratively.
They got pissed because he took it too far in his war with them. There are some political benefits in being the anti-media candidate, but it can backfire if they decide that their position is "fuck you too." Nothing changed about the how the media worked, and the spat might only be a short term one.
It will change in the future, because of technology. But the change has nothing to do with a new generation's desire for a media that will be inherently Clinton friendly or truth friendly. If there's one thing I can think of to characterize it would be social-bubble friendly.
There's a lot of people who expect Trump to be overstating his convictions and positions in order to appease some portions of the party and gain the votes, and they don't believe his talk about him not being a typical politician. They expect that like most politicians he's just saying what he needs to get some votes and he'll pull back as time goes on. You can see it in every Trump supporter who is confronted with the worst aspects of Trumpyness by reporters and comedians alike, and who responds that that's not "what he's really going to be like".
So as soon as they are confronted, in person, with the reality that "No, this is the monster you created, this is the guy who's going to be the living embodiment of all of your party's competing ideas and issues because he'll do anything for money or fame", they're shocked.
I don't think those people need to be pitied, I think they need to be studied so that we can weaponize the effect.
How else is he going to convince whites he isn't racist?
What? That is, if anything, one of the least charitable interpretations, that the kid thinks it's okay to shit on The Other so long as The Other isn't him. That's absolutely "Fuck you" territory. That's "it's okay to punch somebody if that somebody isn't you," which we're sorta supposed to grow out of by the age of 4.
If he didn't see it at all or didn't realise it was real or whatever, at least we'd be past that elementally low bar of human morality and relations.
I don't think Clinton's corrupt, but she has made some choices that she really should have foreseen would be used as a political bludgeon. We can condemn most of those attacks while also occasionally getting annoyed at Clinton for making things easier on her opposition.
I mean, you think if X Republican Candidate had delivered a bunch of closed door meetings to Wall Street the democrats wouldn't be ragging on it just as much? Of course we would!
I agree with this in principle, but the kid is only 18. This is probably the biggest exposure to this kind of rhetoric in his life.
So while I agree that people who go GOP until it affects them personally don't get much sympathy, young adults still learning get some leeway with me as they are still adapting to the realities of the world.
I blame his parents more.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
When this election is all done with there's going to be a lot of room for some serious media introspection to go on. I can't say for certain that it's actually going to happen and not instead be blithely forgotten in favor of maintaining the status quo, but everyone is agreed that this election is a total circus and I don't think we're going to forget it quickly. Young people today are going to look at this and seriously consider "how can we not have that happen again?"
It's mostly the Pew poll that changed its methodology (included Stein for the first time).
As in, the kid thought The Other was a legitimate evil threat after listening to GOP rhetoric, and he didn't realize that they're actually people like him too until put into the position to sympathize with them. As sad as this is to say that's an entirely natural way to view the world and most people don't realize they're doing it all the time.
I think we may be going to far in analyzing this kid's thinking. He may not have thought anything beyond "Man this is exciting and it feels good to belong to something". Those feelings can shut of a whole lot of other parts of your brain, that's why cults exist.
Naturally Trump took that as evidence the system is rigged.
I really liked how the coverage I saw about trump's claim that hillary/obama founded isis was always followed up with (they didn't) or something similar
I wish more coverage of lies would contain refutations immediately thereafter in the coverage
IE 'candidate so and so promised to do x today (illegal under current international law)' or 'person questions obama's place of birth (which has been verified by his certificate)' or whatever
This comment I found elsewhere sums up my feelings:
What I want to know is when the fuck the media at large is going to apologize for the birth certificate thing.
Like it was inexcusable on any level for anyone to spread that bullshit, and everyone who reported on it without pointing out how incredibly dumb it was on every level should be forced to acknowledge that doing so was a massive hit to their credibility as a news agency.
Yeah I'm super hesitant to ascribe any kind of cunning to anything the Trump Campaign does at this point, but if this whole "you've got nothing left to lose" line is supposed to do something its to reassure white people that maybe he isn't that racist.
This will happen about the same time they stop treating Iraq War supporters as very serious people and those who opposed it as unserious hippies who cannot be trusted.
I agree. The problem for I see for Clinton is that for a significant part of the population, a woman running for president is itself unethical.
Personally I don't know of any instance that would make me question her ethics. Maybe I should. I probably should, because nobody is perfect. I asked in this thread for reasons to doubt Clinton, and the only thing that came up was the no fly zone in Syria. What that tells me is that sometimes she makes bad decisions, but she is not ethically suspect.
Pretty sure that's a fake Trump account.
It's the reason I don't feel sorry for him. These kinds of awakenings are, hopefully, what make us re-evaluate those awful opinions. They're necessary.
The question is, will he take a moment for self-reflection and adjust to the now-wider world, or closet off and double down? We'll probably never know.
if this were going to happen it would have happened already; a couple of the more rigorous 'traditional' media companies might change their behavior a bit in the long run (WaPo.)
trump in a lot of ways is the perfect candidate for modern media of all stripes: he's a never-ending font of cheap, outrage-inducing headlines. If Trump weren't running this year they'd have invented him before long.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
They did invent him.
I saw a snippet of CNN's coverage of his trip to Louisiana and it just really pissed me off that they were treating his visit as a normal legitimate presidential candidate
The idea that the news will allow him to pivot or accept his 'sorry you feel that way' apology and actually possibly let him get away with a new narrative just kind of sickens me. He deserves nothing but derision at all times. Any time he does something 'good' they should just relist all the shit hes said and done again. Gahhhh
And one possible outcome could be to destroy private press and freedom of press
I'm not seeing how "assess that perhaps things need to change" will automatically mean your preferred magical realist outcome where anti-intellectualism and the fracturing of narrative realities will inevitably disappear. Take a look at the GOP autopsy report for instance.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Sad as it is, likeability and trustworthyness are real things. Hilary IS an honest, skilled and dedicated politician. She just SEEMS kinda seedy. People have feelings about other people. If enough people have the same opinion, it becomes something you have to deal with. This isn't a man vs woman thing. Elizabeth Warren is trustworthy.
Many Republicans have the opinion climate change isn't real. Just because they are wrong doesn't mean it's any easier to pass environmental legislation.
I voted for Dole.
Then W.
Twice.
As someone who volunteers weekly (most of the time) at a soup kitchen, no an extra pair of hands probably isn't important. The people who only show up on Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas do little more than actively slow down everything.
A disaster location is a different circumstance, but video of what he was actually doing show it likely impeded the efforts. Especially since it was just him, Pence, and the circus of security and media that are obliged to follow him. If he showed up with a few trailers of basic supplies and a local office full of staff and volunteers to spend the whole day doing stuff? That's probably helping more than hurting. Making a shitty bucket brigade of toys and then glad handing a few people? You just wasted 2 hours of everybody's life.
Indoctrinate followers with rigid dogma? check.
Isolate them from alternative viewpoints? check.
Establish yourself as the One And Only Voice of Truth? check.
Alienate everyone on the outside? check.
Cry persecution when anyone tries to shine a light inside? check.
Stockpile weapons for the prophesied battle with the evildoers? check.
When do the bulk orders for Kool-Aid go out?