Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Skroe]

Apparently Trump skipped the climate talks at the G7.



So... yeah.

That's fine. He has only like another hour to get out of France. If he does so, he'll have only caused modest embarrassment and zero international incidents. He could have been the obnoxious drunk uncle who made a scene and started kicking over tables. Instead he's just kind of the weird uncle who made a lot of non sequitur and hit on his brothers wife.

For Donald Trump's sham Presidency, that's a win. Soon he'll be back stateside in his play pen where he can't cause any further international harm.

[Breccia]

All you're doing, here, is directly attacking the basic freedom of speech and freedom of the press, to try and suppress points of view that you personally don't support.

AND.

He wants it replaced with what Trump tweets, despite it typically being without evidence and often being factually false. Kind of like Trump's claims that Google is biased, which is laughable to the point of conspiracy theory.

That's something you'd expect to hear in a dictatorship like Putin's Russia. None of that here, thanks.

[some guy]

Apparently Trump skipped the climate talks at the G7.



So... yeah.

Speaking from experience, this sounds exactly like dementia.

[rda]

It's not about stopping climate change. It's about mitigating our impact on it while also preparing for the increased effects as glaciers and ice sheets continue to melt more quickly.

That also is pandering for political points. See Bernie Sanders plan, it's mostly all like that. A lot of money wasted on becoming "green" and "future proof" with the effect on climate being disappearingly small.

[Adam Jensen]

He denies that he:

"has suggested multiple times to senior Homeland Security and national security officials that they explore using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the United States"

He was asking about how this works and whether exploding something somewhere near a hurricane could help divert its course. (It looks like this needs too much energy.)

- - - Updated - - -



It's mentioned right in the piece that started it that the idea is not new and not Trump's invention. That he heard of it actually makes him more knowledgeable than people who did not.

More spin than a Cat 5 hurricane right here.

[rda]

All you're doing, here, is directly attacking the basic freedom of speech and freedom of the press, to try and suppress points of view that you personally don't support. It's an attempt to justify quashing those you disagree with, nothing more.

Same with your position attacking Google, Facebook, and Youtube's freedoms. You want to deny them freedom of speech, so you can control and restrict what they are allowed to communicate.

I am not attacking the basic freedom of speech, I am suggesting that a lot of people want news without bias or with clearly separable bias, that traditional media on the West became way worse regarding this and that as a result, that market will be satisfied from other sources. I have zero issues with traditional media redefining themselves into a niche of "we'll offer some propaganda", it's their choice. Same for Google, Facebook and Youtube, with an exception that their current status quo calls for limits to be put on them until they stop being de-facto monopolies in several key areas.

[Adam Jensen]

It's good that he did that. What exactly did you expect from those talks? Climate change is happening, but there is no catastrophe looming and all talks about trying to stop climate change are just pandering for political points.

I mean, the Amazon Rain Forest only produces about 20% of the world's oxygen . . .

[rda]

AND.

He wants it replaced with what Trump tweets, despite it typically being without evidence and often being factually false. Kind of like Trump's claims that Google is biased, which is laughable to the point of conspiracy theory.

That's something you'd expect to hear in a dictatorship like Putin's Russia. None of that here, thanks.

I don't want it replaced with Trump tweets, what I said was something else entirely. Whatever.

[Skroe]

I guess it's fine, but claiming he was having talks with Germany and India when Merkel and Modi were at the talks is... stupid. Almost as stupid as him thinking he hadn't missed the talk and that it was coming up.

I mean look, we're dealing with the guy who enjoys basically pooping his pants and then yelling "hey everyone, smell that? I did that! HA! Whatcha gonna do now?!"

The best we can hope with Donald Trump is that when he does poop his pants, he instead goes "*sniff* *sniff* something smells, doesn't it?"

The amazing news it is quite clear that Europe has figured out Donald Trump and how to contain him. This is a foreign policy disaster for the Trump agenda in its own right, because it means that his shock tricks don't work anymore. He's a known quantity they are working around.

[Breccia]

I guess it's fine, but claiming he was having talks with Germany and India when Merkel and Modi were at the talks is... stupid. Almost as stupid as him thinking he hadn't missed the talk and that it was coming up.

It is technically possible he was meeting lesser leaders of those two countries. But I find it highly unlikely that Trump would keep his ego in check long enough to do so. Pence or Kudlow or whatever, yes. Trump, no, I don't buy that until they confirm it.

[Endus]

I am not attacking the basic freedom of speech, I am suggesting that a lot of people want news without bias or with clearly separable bias, that traditional media on the West became way worse regarding this and that as a result, that market will be satisfied from other source I have zero issues with traditional media redefining themselves into a niche of "we'll offer some propaganda", it's their choice.

You're describing opinions you don't share and analysis you don't agree with as "propaganda".

The bias here is in you, not the widely varied branches of traditional media.

Same for Google, Facebook and Youtube, with an exception that their current status quo calls for limits to be put on them until they stop being de-facto monopolies in several key areas.

And those kinds of "limits" are exactly the kind of attack on basic freedom of speech that you claimed you weren't arguing for.

So that was clearly a lie.

[Breccia]

You're describing opinions you don't share and analysis you don't agree with as "propaganda".

He's also suggesting taking "news" directly from Trump's twitter feed is "news without bias" Again, this is what you would expect to see from Putin's dictatorship. The US and Canada have their own approaches.

[rda]

You're describing opinions you don't share and analysis you don't agree with as "propaganda".

The bias here is in you, not the widely varied branches of traditional media.



And those kinds of "limits" are exactly the kind of attack on basic freedom of speech that you claimed you weren't arguing for.

So that was clearly a lie.

No, what I am describing as propaganda is reporting that distorts what was said or what happened in a direction the reporter is interested in. The bias is on the distorter, not on listeners.

Google, Facebook and Youtube are misusing their positions of de-facto monopolies to influence the political arena, that's why I want limits to be put onto them. Pushing your own agenda is fine, but only if you are small and counterweighted by others. Google / FB / YT aren't that, so until they are that, they have to be made neutral by means other than the market.

- - - Updated - - -

He's also suggesting taking "news" directly from Trump's twitter feed is "news without bias" Again, this is what you would expect to see from Putin's dictatorship. The US and Canada have their own approaches.

No, I am not suggesting that. You keep distorting what I say.

[Shalcker]

The media has always engaged in presenting editorial opinions and journalist's analysis. That's their purpose. It isn't to simply present naked facts without comment.

Opinions and analysis were generally confined to editorials and analytical articles, respectively.

I've checked a few variations of journalist codes, and you seem to be wrong.

Editorializing reporting on news is more of a new thing.

[Breccia]

Dude never does shit without some kind of photo being taken. If it happened there’s evidence out there.

Also an excellent point. And we don't have those.

Me, I hear what @Skroe is saying about this being only moderately embarrassing and therefore a proportional win. But it's not over till AF1 lands and Trump starts tweeting without France looking over his shoulder.

[Bodakane]

No, what I am describing as propaganda is reporting that distorts what was said or what happened in a direction the reporter is interested in. The bias is on the distorter, not on listeners.

Google, Facebook and Youtube are misusing their positions of de-facto monopolies to influence the political arena, that's why I want limits to be put onto them. Pushing your own agenda is fine, but only if you are small and counterweighted by others. Google / FB / YT aren't that, so until they are that, they have to be made neutral by means other than the market.

- - - Updated - - -



No, I am not suggesting that. You keep distorting what I say.

No, Russia used them to distribute false propaganda that got an illegitimate person elected with a minority of the votes. This is fact. this has been proven.

[rda]

No, Russia used them to distribute false propaganda that got an illegitimate person elected with a minority of the votes. This is fact. this has been proven.

Russian trolls did use FB and other social networks to distribute propaganda, but that's by far not the most significant sources of propaganda here.

All of Google, Facebook, Youtube insert their own biases into the picture and the effect of that is much greater than that of Russian trolls.

[Skroe]

Also an excellent point. And we don't have those.

Me, I hear what @Skroe is saying about this being only moderately embarrassing and therefore a proportional win. But it's not over till AF1 lands and Trump starts tweeting without France looking over his shoulder.

Oh absolutely correct. Hopefully though he's so tuckered out from his 2 hour work day he sleeps the whole trip home.

[Paranoid Android]

AND.

He wants it replaced with what Trump tweets, despite it typically being without evidence and often being factually false. Kind of like Trump's claims that Google is biased, which is laughable to the point of conspiracy theory.

That's something you'd expect to hear in a dictatorship like Putin's Russia. None of that here, thanks.

The irony and head banging thing of all time is they don't want news yet they hang on every word of this lying tash.

But hey, that is how authoritarian places work. Followe the leader without question.

[Bodakane]

Russian trolls did use FB and other social networks to distribute propaganda, but that's by far not the most significant sources of propaganda here.

All of Google, Facebook, Youtube insert their own biases into the picture and the effect of that is much greater than that of Russian trolls.

Bullshit.

It got Trump elected. It cannot be MORE influential than that.