The Winner of Our Discontent — 2016 U.S. Election Results Discussion

[ForceStealer]

No, we're arguing that the press not being invited to said dinner represents a lack of transparency.

Sometimes during Calvin Coolidge's presidency, a White House aide would just come out and call off a press conference and send all the press home. Imagine the conniption these guys would have about this.

if it's just something as inconsequential as 'dinner at a restaurant', what is the problem with telling the press pool that?

Because the having the press around you at dinner is annoying. Isn't that obvious? And unless he's planning to stiff them on the tip, I don't understand what nefarious deeds he is planning to hide from press by eating at a restaurant in public with his family.

Should he tell the press when he's going to take a bath in case he slips and hits his head? What about when he's pouring a cup of coffee in case he burns his hand?

None of this is a defense of Trump or really has anything to do with him. It is a repudiation of a press that feel entitled to meaningless details of banal events because they're used to people handing it to them. Once he actually is a president, he won't be able to sneak off because the secret service literally doesn't let the president leave.

 

[Strangelove]

Because the having the press around you at dinner is annoying. Isn't that obvious? And unless he's planning to stiff them on the tip, I don't understand what nefarious deeds he is planning to hide from press by eating at a restaurant in public with his family.

Should he tell the press when he's going to take a bath in case he slips and hits his head? What about when he's pouring a cup of coffee in case he burns his hand?

the press pool being there doesn't mean they will all be sitting in the restaurant and asking him questions throughout dinner, since they tend to wait outside but nearby so people know where the president-elect is and to get a response in case of some urgent event. it's not about telling the press everything little thing he does, they probably weren't waiting outside trump tower hoping to find out what pyjamas he was wearing that night. but suddenly not being where you said you would be, without saying where you're going, is different. and it's not like he was traveling light with just his family here anyway, he went with a motorcade (just minus the press) and has had a secret service detail since becoming the republican candidate.

sorry if having all those people around cramps his style, but tough titties. he didn't have to run to be president. this is what happens when you're president or soon-to-be president. people want to know what you're doing, where you're going, who you're with.

not that he seems to have a clue what being president actually entails

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

people want to know what you're doing, where you're going, who you're with.

I genuinely couldn't care less.

And like you said, he's got Secret Service around. They're going to be a lot more important in the case of an urgent event than a bunch of salivating, rabid leeches looking to "get a comment" that will amount to "No comment at this time. Please, excuse us" -- at least until the urgent event in question can be seen to and an actual press briefing organized.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

I should also add that the likes of NBC and CNN and whatever other major news organizations can seriously blow me so many ways if they want to complain about their President-elect blowing them off to go eat a steak.

I say "their President-elect" because they damn well elected him. They gave him the equivalent of billions in free campaign advertising. They hung on his every word. They played his speeches almost in their entirety when they were giving no other candidate on the campaign trail more than a sound byte.

Seriously. They can blow me. Hard.

 

[Random Nobody]

Justified or not, I hope journalists take every opportunity to scalp him for the tiniest of infractions. I hope he gets his wig fried every time he breevs oxygen.

 

[Carlie]

I've been meaning to share this:

 

[Carlie]

White Nationalists on Trump’s Attorney General pick: ‘It’s like Christmas’

 

[Ghost X]

Trump wants a safe space for Mike Pence, after theatre performers used their free speech rights to criticise him during his attendance. Poor special snowflakes.

 

[Cthulhu]

Trump's twitter temper tantrums intended to distract from the real issues.

Let’s face it, the news isn’t news anymore. All the biggest names like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. have all become TMZ by a different name. However, at least TMZ does better investigative reporting.

 

[Ghost X]

I don't really agree with it being a successful distraction, if it was supposed to be that. At least the media here seemed to have the Trump university thing stuck in their internet "front page" for a while. I already knew about that anyway. Granted, I'm curious what right-wingers of the board think about it. Is swindling people moral in the "individual responsibility" universe? My on-going belief is that right-wingers simply do not recognise power structures, and/or believe the exploitation of such is fine and dandy.

I just prefer to concentrate on Trump's hypocrisy and his cabinet picks. Would be interesting to hear the right-wingers of the board's views on such too. "Oh, they're not conspiratory theory peddling, anti-semites, who think non-white people in power destroy civic society... No, they *insert mental gymnastics here*." I think I'm asking too much though .

What makes me panic less about the near future is apparently some administrations in decades past have been also filled with similarly super racist paranoid characters... and we survived those? I haven't done research into those claims though, and I've heard some other comparisons that are incredibly weak... like Trump being like Reagan. No, Reagan had experience in government before he was the president.

 

[Cthulhu]

Spoiler: this guy has the right idea

Spoiler: bing bing

 

[Flintlock]

I just prefer to concentrate on Trump's hypocrisy and his cabinet picks. Would be interesting to hear the right-wingers of the board's views on such too. "Oh, they're not conspiratory theory peddling, anti-semites, who think non-white people in power destroy civic society... No, they *insert mental gymnastics here*." I think I'm asking too much though .

Nah, I just think you're asking in a really bad way. You set the question up in a way that is dismissive of the answers before you've even got them. It's not hard to see why a "right-winger" would be hesitant to debate you. You're a smart guy, surely you can see that yourself?

 

[Ghost X]

I play good cop too. Fucking bend over backwards to try and create an environment that fits their criteria. It is the scrutiny they don't like. You're a smart guy too, and play nicer. As do others here. Hit brickwalls at the same rate.

Why the quotes around right-winger? Is that controversial also? :p. Ah... Nevermind.

 

[Flintlock]

Nothing necessarily controversial in right-winger. It's just a personal preference I have to avoid generalising people with left and right. I've noticed more and more in the last couple of years that they're really not good descriptors. In this case, a person you might describe as a right-winger may agree with you or they may not, but your post suggested to me that you were already presupposing they wouldn't.

I also wasn't trying to imply that you never play fair, just that this time you obviously weren't.

 

[Ghost X]

Supposing I am mischaracterising positions or making false predictions. It should then be easy to argue or act otherwise, and make a fool out of me .

Yes, right-winger is a generalisation of sorts, but I disagree that it isn't a helpful descriptor when the majority of views held by the folk I'm talking about are to the right of the spectrum.

 

[Cthulhu]

I like to think of myself as trying to find a balance between left and right, so, aiming a post specifically at a certain "side" already feels off to me. I think I'd prefer to go "I have opinion X; is there anything that has a different opinion?". Reddit had a subwossname once called "change my view", which had a similar vibe (although IDK the details). Point is, if you're asking for counterpoints, it's probably preferable to ask people for their opinion, or (harsher) to "change my view" or "I would like to read someone else's point of view", instead of "Well what do You Lot think of it eh?". (disregard the tone in that last bit, it's already generalising)

 

[Obsidian Fire]

The best explanation I've seen was the facebook post Trainer Red linked to: https://www.facebook.com/wes.alwan/posts/583104348775

Particularly this part:

Finally: consider the enormous asymmetry in cultural power in the United States, the one the media conveniently never talks about. Ask yourself how you would feel if Republicans had a mortal lock on the University and the media and Hollywood.

No matter how power the conservatives hold in government, they're never going to have the type of cultural influence the liberals do. It takes far longer to get that kind of influence then the political kind. So long and the liberals hold on to that, the conservatives in government can't really do anything about causes the culture champions (LGBTQ stuff, race stuff, etc.) or else they won't get reelected. So if I were you guys, I'd honestly be a lot more worried if the conservatives decided to buy out Hollywood then when they get elected.

IBH, I'm a really, really bad example of the "typical" right-winger. I literally live 15 minutes from Hollywood and pretty much all the people I interact with on a daily basis are liberals. So I'm really, really used to seeing that kind of culture. Pretty much any of the cultural conservative stuff is not why any conservatives in California are conservative (not that it hurts, mind you). National Security on the other hand? Oh yeah. The fact that the news media is helping Clinton make her self look better as much as they're making Trump look worse? Definitely. Economics? The longer a person has been doing business in the state the more likely it is that they like conservative economic policies; it can't be any worse then the liberal ones in place in California right now.

As far as the racism-homophobia-xenophobia-sexism-misogyny thing goes? We've been hearing the hurled at conservatives by liberals since before Obama got elected. If they don't say that about the Republican candidate, then the candidate's doing something wrong.

It does say something though that when half of my cousins who are from liberal families didn't say who they were voting for, their parents assumed (correctly) they were voting for Trump. Being a conservative in California is fine so long as you don't tell people you actually are one. A lot of assumptions get made then that are really hard to overturn.

Long story short, so long as the press is literally reporting anything that Trump does, we'll be fine. The press makes for a better check on the president then the other two branches combined. The problems start when the press thinks they don't have to report on everything the president is doing and the press definetly wasn't doing that with Hillary.

So yeah, no idea what "rust-belt" right-wingers are thinking, but I have a pretty good idea what the right-wingers in states that voted for Hillary are thinking.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

I hear the thing about Hollywood and the media being liberal a lot from conservative folks that I know, but I'm not convinced. Sure, they utilize -- maybe even espouse -- liberal angles and such, but that's not quite the same thing, is it?

They're both out to make money, and I'm not convinced that the people in charge of either necessarily care simply because they're "in Hollywood" or "part of the media." I believe they're as likely to just go with what they know will sell or get them ratings.

I suppose you could argue that it still amounts to the same effect either way, but if we bother to make a distinction between the things politicians say to get elected and what they actually believe (e.g. Trump changing his position on marriage equality at least twice, and Hillary conveniently changing her own stance once it was time to run for President again), I think it's worth doing when discussing the cultural gatekeepers too.

As far as the racism-homophobia-xenophobia-sexism-misogyny thing goes? We've been hearing the hurled at conservatives by liberals since before Obama got elected. If they don't say that about the Republican candidate, then the candidate's doing something wrong.

I know what you were trying to say here, but I don't think it came out the way you meant it to. XD

 

[Ghost X]

Some right-wing folks who agree with some of my positions:
- Ron Paul doubts Trump will "drain the swamp" given the names swirling around his cabinet picks, and the systemic depth of corruption.
- Rand Paul attacks potential cabinet member, John Bolton, as an extremist, who thinks the Iraq War was a good thing and who thinks regime change works (and will likely seek it with Iran), when it evidently doesn't work.
- Bill O'Reilly says Trump should accept the Paris Climate Agreement. O'Reilly apparently now accepts (at least to a decent degree) the reality and danger of climate change. Maybe he has also learnt the moon causes the tides .

 

[Flintlock]

From the New York Times: The End of Identity Liberalism. Quite a long read but a good one.

 

[Clement Rage]

The best explanation I've seen was the facebook post Trainer Red linked to: https://www.facebook.com/wes.alwan/posts/583104348775

Particularly this part:

Finally: consider the enormous asymmetry in cultural power in the United States, the one the media conveniently never talks about. Ask yourself how you would feel if Republicans had a mortal lock on the University and the media and Hollywood.

No matter how power the conservatives hold in government, they're never going to have the type of cultural influence the liberals do. It takes far longer to get that kind of influence then the political kind. So long and the liberals hold on to that, the conservatives in government can't really do anything about causes the culture champions (LGBTQ stuff, race stuff, etc.) or else they won't get reelected. So if I were you guys, I'd honestly be a lot more worried if the conservatives decided to buy out Hollywood then when they get elected.

IBH, I'm a really, really bad example of the "typical" right-winger. I literally live 15 minutes from Hollywood and pretty much all the people I interact with on a daily basis are liberals. So I'm really, really used to seeing that kind of culture. Pretty much any of the cultural conservative stuff is not why any conservatives in California are conservative (not that it hurts, mind you). National Security on the other hand? Oh yeah. The fact that the news media is helping Clinton make her self look better as much as they're making Trump look worse? Definitely. Economics? The longer a person has been doing business in the state the more likely it is that they like conservative economic policies; it can't be any worse then the liberal ones in place in California right now.

As far as the racism-homophobia-xenophobia-sexism-misogyny thing goes? We've been hearing the hurled at conservatives by liberals since before Obama got elected. If they don't say that about the Republican candidate, then the candidate's doing something wrong.

It does say something though that when half of my cousins who are from liberal families didn't say who they were voting for, their parents assumed (correctly) they were voting for Trump. Being a conservative in California is fine so long as you don't tell people you actually are one. A lot of assumptions get made then that are really hard to overturn.

Long story short, so long as the press is literally reporting anything that Trump does, we'll be fine. The press makes for a better check on the president then the other two branches combined. The problems start when the press thinks they don't have to report on everything the president is doing and the press definetly wasn't doing that with Hillary.

So yeah, no idea what "rust-belt" right-wingers are thinking, but I have a pretty good idea what the right-wingers in states that voted for Hillary are thinking.

Ghost, I'm interested in hearing your response to this.

 

[Dashell]

I'm going to interrupt the current convo for stuff probably no one cares about. But if for SOME REASON someone wanted to rewatch the election night coverage (which I've been doing a bit of here and there, fun to see reactions.) here's some videos:


Fox:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9l8cZ1hEWY Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LovXZN96A38 Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0tWQ4W8bl8 Part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSbMffI1Djs Part 4


CBS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktx8YfHkWU0&

ABC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TTiDlK4vS8

BBC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMuXg83A0G0 Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMoyF0HHgJQ Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mnrAIb-oSU Part 3


Can't find CNN but... these are interesting to watch IMO. Long though


EDIT:
and here's Bill Clinton's night for fun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgCDcGEnSZE

 

[Ghost X]

@Clement Rage: Anything in particular? Please, don't say all of it . Too many things to unpack.

 

[Kionae]

Trump aide Kellyanne Conway: No plan to pursue charges against Clinton

"Look, I think he's thinking of many different things as he prepares to become the President of the United States, and things that sound like the campaign are not among them," she added.

So... you're basically telling us that Trump isn't thinking about any of the stuff he promised to get himself elected. Wow... I'm shocked. Even Brietbart's criticizing him on that one...

Trump reportedly explodes at media bigwigs in off-record meeting

"Trump kept saying, 'We're in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong,'" a source told the Post. "He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars," a source told the Post.

So... off the record meeting with the press he can throw a Trumpertantrum about how unfair they are. How's that transparency thing coming?

Oh, and he's also bitching on Twitter about the New Your Times today, too...

In other news, New York wants to be reimbursed to the tune of $1 million per day for the extra security required by Trump's refusal to move his family to the White House. So... $365 million per year, quite possibly for the next four years, paid for on the federal dime.

 

[Unit-01]

Trump reportedly explodes at media bigwigs in off-record meeting

"Trump kept saying, 'We're in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong,'" a source told the Post. "He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars," a source told the Post.

So... off the record meeting with the press he can throw a Trumpertantrum about how unfair they are. How's that transparency thing coming?

I liked that Donald Trump did this.

After over a year of painting him in a bad un-honest paint, why should he be fair to them? I also find it hilarious how they flip out when Trump goes somewhere without informing them.

He owes them nothing.

edit- The url you posted there Kionae has nothing to do with what you titled the url as. Did you use the wrong link?