The Real Reason Why Americans Approve of Trump’s Disastrous Transition
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
How can it be, you may be wondering, that 55 percent of Americans tell pollsters they approve of how Donald Trump is handling the transition? He has nominated—almost but not quite literally across the board—unqualified extremists. Think about it: These are people who’ve never run these large, complex organizations and who, if they shouldn’t be ruled out on those grounds, should certainly be ruled out on the basis of their way-outside-the-mainstream views and announced goals to all but destroy the agencies they’re going to run; they’re people whose only association with the word “cabinet” should be the ones they select when remodeling their kitchens.
Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Kash Patel are just the starting rotation, as it were (and Matt Gaetz, the lone casualty so far). Many, many others are objectionable in some way. Trump’s would-be IRS guy is an auctioneer (seriously) who, in a brief congressional stint, sponsored something called the Tax Code Termination Act. The CDC guy, another former congressman who runs a medical practice and whom Trump proposes to head a 13,000 employee, $9 billion operation, is arguably more anti-vax than RFK Jr. And so on and so on. We could do this with about two-thirds of them.
And people support this. Why?
Here’s a conventional explanation. Because Americans are ready to turn the page. Because Joe Biden is so deeply unpopular that the country is restless to see him and his whole crew go. Because people still think Trump the businessman can make things better.
There’s a little truth in all that. But here’s another explanation. People don’t really know about these Cabinet picks because average Americans just aren’t as read-in to the news as they once were. They watch the news on their phones in 30-second snippets. If they read, it’s headlines and social media posts, maybe. So they know, probably, that Trump nominated Dr. Oz to something or other. But do they know that he has a roughly $30 million financial stake in companies that will be doing business with the very Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that he is probably going to lead? I very much doubt it.
Let me make two points here. First, I don’t think there was some golden age when every citizen, or even most citizens, read all they could about such matters. That’s ridiculous. The concept of the informed citizenry on which democracy depends has always been a challenge. Second, this is not a blame-the-idiot-people column. People are busy. They have lives and kids and bills and passions and hobbies, and they don’t make a lot of time for politics. That’s life.
All this is increasingly a by-product of life in a time of widening inequality, too. If you’re working longer hours to make ends meet, and it’s that much harder to tend to the immediate obligations the real world throws at you, you’ve got much less time to read news and reflect. Just one more reason why a more broadly shared prosperity is so important.
So no, I don’t blame people. I blame the larger culture, which has been almost totally drained of common concern about our civic health. First and foremost, I blame Rupert Murdoch (and to a lesser extent his imitators), whose media properties have injected so much poison and so many lies into our discourse since 1977 that common civic agreement about basic morality in public life has become impossible.
We used to have that—except about sex, which allowed JFK (among others) to survive politically, and about which society was completely hypocritical. But on all other matters, we had a basic understanding about what kinds of actions did and did not reflect our best values, and this was why Richard Nixon had to resign in disgrace for committing far fewer offenses than Trump already has. Everyone, whatever their politics, agreed that Nixon had clearly crossed a line. But that impulse is dead in the United States, and the right-wing media killed it.
I blame the mainstream media, too, for failing too often to fight hard enough to maintain their commitment to that common civic agreement about basic morality. Every narrative and meme that the mainstream media uncritically picks up from the right-wing ecosystem and runs with for the sake of clicks—and there have been thousands of them over the years—has contributed its little share to our civic collapse.
Many mainstream media outlets, starting with The New York Times , still do tons of important work, and we’d be far poorer without their scoops and investigations. But those occasional scoops have been, in my view, more than outweighed by an overall tenor of political coverage that has watched one of our two parties descend into a particularly un-American blend of authoritarianism and cartoonish radicalism without nearly enough alarm bells getting raised. So much of the political media hasn’t reckoned with what’s coming—at least not in a public-facing way with their readers and viewers.
Making matters worse is that we seem to have good reason to worry that some outlets now want to make peace with Trumpism. The owner of The Washington Post (and I think you know who he is), after nixing the paper’s already-written Kamala Harris endorsement, is donating $1 million to Trump’s inauguration. The owner of the Los Angeles Times is cooking up these new rules promising a more “fair and balanced” approach to the news. ABC is paying Trump $15 million (plus a million to cover legal fees) to settle a defamation claim that came after several ABC and Disney executives made pilgrimages to Mar-a-Lago to meet with transition officials.
It’s chilling. It’s nonetheless true that the mainstream media in general have been pretty aggressive in what they’ve been writing about Trump’s nominees. But that just leaves us with the other problem: No one is reading. Only about 10 percent of people read newspapers anymore, and their online engagement with newspaper web sites averages less than two minutes.
So: Sure, your average American is ready to bid Biden hasta la vista . But that isn’t why people are relatively sanguine about the early days of a coming administration that has the makings of the most corrupt presidential administration ever. They’re sanguine because they just don’t know. They haven’t heard. Or if they’ve heard, they don’t believe it. They still think the checks and balances they learned about in school will sort things out and hold Trump at bay. They don’t realize that Trump & Co. have formulated specific plans to evade or trample those checks and balances, and if they’ve read that , they don’t believe it, either.
I’ll bet you my mortgage that among people who read news, whatever their political views, concern runs much higher. But these days, that describes a rapidly dwindling number of people. You know how pollsters ask respondents basic demographic and attitudinal questions before they get to the substance? I propose that all pollsters start including questions about people’s media habits so we can see, repeatedly, week in, week out, the growing chasm between the informed and the less informed (or, in the case of people who rely solely on right-wing media, the anti-informed).
In sum: The transition approval is more proof that the right-wing media has won. Disinforming is the new informing. And it’s spreading to more and more mainstream outlets. The only question, which more and more of us are asking, is when the liberal establishment in this country will wake up and tackle this problem.
Tags
Who is online
202 visitors
Couldn't agree more.
Are we ever going to get back to living in a sane shared reality, or is the American Experiment basically on its way to the dustbin of history?
They left out the largest part of the problem. The much more massive left wing media. Purveyors of half truths, disinformation and hate.
The article this seed is based on is proof of that.
So anything you don't agree with is left wing?
Case in point.
The very media that gaslit people into believing Biden was mentally capable of holding office.
Your words not mine
Oh yeah and their useful idiots ate it up with spoon.
So name a news media source you don't agree with that isn't 'left wing'.
[✘]
[✘]
Why would an actual news source be something with which one can agree or disagree?
How do we not understand that the element of "agree or disagree" is, in fact, the problem?
Actual news is composed of facts. It is written objectively. If done correctly, the reader cannot tell the political opinions of the writer.
The idea that we have "news" sources that require agreement or disagreement is the problem.
I asked a specific question for a specific reason.
The rise of 'Opinion' being elevated above real news. It is a symptom of populists engaging in politics and an elevation of Kellyanne Conway's 'alternative facts'. Conway may have been catering to the right wing populists at the time, but op-eds as news cater to both sides. To be sure of what we are talking about should we not identify our sources?
Populism will be the death of democracy...
Anyone saying that these picks are unqualified and extreme is ignorant and uninformed. We need to look no further than the clown show that Biden assembled and let loose upon the American people. The damage caused by these morons will take years to undo.
corrupt cavalcade of unqualified extremists
Talking to people in my area, this is one of the main reasons for voting for Trump, because that is their view of the Biden administration.
Make the case that Hegseth, for example, is qualified to run the DoD.
I would never claim a cabinet is perfect, but you paint a pretty terrible napkin sketch of the catastrophe unleashed by the Biden cabinet picks. Did you have something real in mind?[✘]
[✘] As far Hegseth is concerned he is far more “qualified” to run Defense than Obama was to be President and be over Defense. Military veteran, Princeton & Harvard grad. Obama had no military experience. None.
I’m sure you’ll disagree, which just further reinforces my point.
a little preview of the next 4 years. criminals, corruption, conflicts of interest, and chaos. republicans are unable to govern and trump is a lame duck before his term even starts.
That's was the last 4 years.
For the NEXT 4 years we just have to look back at 2017 - 2021. Liberals and Democrats crying and complaining about everything from the way he parts his hair to what hand he wipes his ass with. All the while fabricating hoax after hoax to try to unseat a duly elected POTUS.
The sad thing for the taker party is they are going to have to wait 2 years for endless investigations, and a chance to impeach the bad orange man.
your check might be a little late this month, LOL ...
What the left and Democrats don't understand is that THEY set the precedence for any possible investigations onto their actions. I doubt that any investigations we see will be based in the same type of fiction we saw from the Democrats but that fiction will be used as the root cause and justified. Unlike those we saw from 2017 - today.
And that's all at the hands of the Biden Administration and Democrats. They sent billions overseas already and the latest bill sent more. Sad that they see the US as a lower priority than a country where the POTUS received payments from.
To what criminals, corruption, etc. do you refer?
as soon as trump capitulates to putin, maga becomes russian collaborators running loose in america ...
whoever his traitorous hero tells him they are ...
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
not by maga, but then, who cares ...
... right back at you.
[✘]
Still can't take you seriously.
... not exactly surprising.
Criminals, corruption, conflicts of interest and chaos?
Like who and what?
Again, who and what?
It's like you've been brainwashed and live in a completely backwards reality.
Every case brought against Trump was based on evidence, and none of it was fabricated. He should be in prison right now, especially for his attempted coup. But let me guess, you probably don't believe he tried to take power after losing in 2020, do you?
They don't care which hand, it's the fact he doesn't use TP, before he parts his hair, is why many feel Trump is so shitty...
maga happily swallows the evidence free bullshit dished out by trump, all while ignoring facts and due process. so much for the pathetic self proclaimed defenders of the constitution ...
Not like there is any evidence that the outgoing president and his administration walked on water or were real peaches themselves.
produce the evidence.
You really don't pay attention do you?
Prove this "attempted coup". Democrats couldn't.
I never said one way or the other. So make what ever assumption you want. It's going to be wrong regardless.
How juvenile. Exactly what I expected.
When you regurgitate the bullshit, expect to be laughed at.
Well then, explain why it's bullshit. That shouldn't be hard if you're so sure of it. Especially in regard to Trump "not" attempting to usurp power, betraying the Constitution and the Republic in the process.
[deleted][✘]
Thanks for the visual. I threw up in my mouth.
Again with the feeble excuses.
The assertion is that Trump attempted to usurp power and betray the Constitution and the Republic in the process.
If you disagree then make your argument. If you cannot make an argument then you obviously have nothing of value to offer.
And of course you cannot make a real argument given the overwhelming evidence that he did as asserted.
what is this garbage ?
And 4 years later no proof has been provided. Even the illustrious shit show of partisan hacks has been exposed for their bullshit.
We have Liz Cheney's witness tampering;
The illustrious shit show altering text messages
The illustrious shit show suppressing testimony
We even have the prosecution overcharging the rioters.
And all the while NOT A SINGLE PERSON was charged with an "insurrection" or "treason" despite the lies and propaganda from the Democrats and the left.
As always, you ignore all the evidence and blindly claim 'no proof'. This over-the-top absurd denial does not persuade anyone.
We all watched Trump incite his supporters with emotive rhetoric claiming that the election was stolen, that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS, that they must fight like hell, etc. Incessant false incendiary claims from the sitting PotUS. We have evidence that Trump fraudulently assembled fake electors in various states. We have testimonies that Trump tried to get states to use his false electors (e.g. Rusty Bowers). We have evidence and even Pence verification that Trump tried to get Pence to unconstitutionally table the certification of select states to (in theory) have Congress decide the winner. We have evidence that Trump tried to coerce secretaries of state (e.g. Raffensperger) to find him votes. To coerce legislators to decertify their results.
And the supporting testimonies from high-ranking officials who were in direct contact with Trump are all Republicans who compromised their careers by testifying.
It is pathetic to buy every excuse, every ridiculous lie put forth by Trump and ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
As you put it:
I don't see a goddamn thing making your argument.
And again, a wholesale denial of the evidence from you. Nothing but nuh-uh. Pathetic.
Then provide it. Or does "If you disagree then make your argument." only apply to others?
I (and others) have provided the evidence countless times in this forum. You ignore it every time. Even when I provided direct video of Trump claiming he won the election and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS you ignored it. You ignore the testimony of high-ranking Republicans who compromised their careers to testify. You ignore all evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.
Per overwhelming evidence in your comment history, you will continue to nuh-uh all the evidence. It is comical. If you were to actually objectively review the evidence you can get it yourself.
It's a fallacy that a negative can't be proven. Look it up. There's a common misconception there. What matters is the breadth of the task. If I hold up a box and ask you to prove there is not a fist-sized rock in it, you can do so easily by examining the box. It's something that is possible to investigate in totality. On the other hand, if I say to prove life does not exist anywhere in the Universe but on Earth, it can't be done. Not because a negatively-phrased claim in and of itself can't be proven, but because the investigation is beyond what is possible.
The reason your disgusting example couldn't technically be "proven" is that a complete, minute by minute record of the subject's life would be required, but doesn't exist. If such a thing did exist, your "negative" could indeed be proven.
Having said that, what I am asking for is support for the claim that the ample and in some cases obvious evidence of Trumps past malfeasance is fabricated bullshit. It may be beyond his ability to prove, but if he has evidence of it, being asked to present it is certainly not intellectually dishonest. Otherwise he's just talking shit.
So you'll have not problems posting the links here just as I have.
Your links did nothing to refute the fact that Trump tried to subvert a presidential election and take power illegally.
Here's some of the things you need to refute, unfortunately they're irrefutable...
That's certainly not all of it, but it's enough to drive the point home.
If you can disprove any of that beyond a reasonable doubt, have at it. Otherwise, Trump remains an oath-breaking tyrant and traitor to the Republic.
I never said they would. That was YOUR assumption as you clicked on them. I DID say it shows the corruption withing the illustrious shit show.
I was told to make an argument, and unlike others, I did.
Tacit admission that you did not put forth a rebuttal.
Here's the top of your post with the links:
Right there you claimed no proof had been provided. Is that not what we're talking about?
Read the second line of what you quoted carefully. I'm making the claim that nothing has been provided to prove any attempt usurp power and betray the Constitution. All we hear is "I've proved it elsewhere".
I don't give a fuck about elsewhere. If one proved it elsewhere, then there would be no problem posting those links again. That is, unless they know their links are fictional. Or they are just being lazy.
I made statements about Cheney and the clusterfuck shit show and provided a link for each one. Something I have yet to see many others do.
And yet I still backed up my claims. I don't see anything backing up yours.
Here is a one of many posts I have provided in direct reply to you:
Immediately, you can watch Trump as he emits lies to the planet as PotUS. Here, 9 minutes long. You are unable to stand up and acknowledge that Trump lied to the world that the USA electoral system was rigged, that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS and that the US electorate was disenfranchised!
Further ...
Trump tried to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution:
Denying facts that do not fit your desires is confirmation bias which leads to living in a false reality and, thus, being wrong most of the time.
Given this is the first time you've put these up here, the only thing I've denied is your constant blathering without backing. Now all you have to do is take off the blinders and look around.
A claim made by several Presidential candidates throughout the history of this country. So the ONLY reason this is an issue is, well, it's Trump and he hurt your feelings.
It also reminds me that Clinton tried the same thing in 2016 that spawned the "Russia Collusion" hoax that went nowhere.
Well, you get the jist of it all. The tantrum you are having is causing you to miss the whole picture that NONE of this is new and that both parties have done it in the past. It's only because of one specific person you are making this into something that is actually commonplace. But then again, the blinders may be preventing you from seeing the trend in all this.
My link about Cheney, altering text messages, suppressing testimony, overcharging rioters are all still ongoing. Meaning they are still looking into it and finding that the committee that you hold so highly is really a septic tank of corruption and partisan nonsense. Unlike you, I'm not making a claim that Cheney tampered with witnesses, the shitshow altered texts, the suppressed testimony are absolute fact.
The only thing that is proven to be absolute fact is the overcharging of the participants. That was a SCOTUS ruling.
Such bullshit. This is one of countless posts I have replied directly to you for more than a year. You engage in denial (and deflection and misrepresentation) every time.
Prior to Trump, no presidential candidate and especially no sitting PotUS (in US history) had ever engaged in a campaign to discredit a US presidential election using lying, fraud, coercion, and incitement. No prior PotUS had ever refused to concede an election, attempted to steal the election, and did not engage in the peaceful transfer of power. Trump is unique in history in this regard.
Continued denial of something this obvious is pathetic.
Here are some direct sentences from one of the articles YOU linked
Yes, Democrats Have Called Some Elections Illegitimate. GOP Election Denialism Is Far Worse. | Cato Institute
" the GOP’s post-2020 election denialism is in an entirely different league. It is vastly more toxic. And it is uniquely dangerous."
"during the first two-and-a-half years of Trump’s presidency, Clinton had kept a low profile and refrained from attacking Trump’s legitimacy. "
" in the immediate aftermath of the election, Hillary Clinton gave a gracious concession speech on November 9, 2016 when it became clear that she had lost to Trump".
"yes, some Democratic House members objected to the certification of their states’ votes. How many? A total of seven . Because no Democratic senators joined them, the objections were not even formally considered. By contrast, in January 2021, 139 Republican House members and eight Republican senators objected to the certification of Biden’s win. That’s 139 vs. 7 in the House and 8 vs. 0 in the Senate."
"not to mention massive Republican efforts at the state level, supported by 19 Republican attorneys general and coordinated with Trump’s own legal team—and with Trump’s own active and aggressive participation—to invalidate the results of the vote in several swing states in an attempt to throw the Electoral College to Trump. In several states that Biden won, this effort included fraudulent electors sending to Washington phony certificates depicting Trump as the winner."
"a mob of Trump supporters—egged on by Trump himself to “ Fight like hell ”—invaded the Capitol in a last-ditch attempt to stop the certification of Biden’s victory. (No, the violent anti-Trump protests in Washington on Inauguration Day in 2017 are not remotely comparable; they were not intended to reverse the election results, and neither Clinton nor any other prominent Democratic politician cheered them on.)"
"In other words, comparing “election results denial” in 2016 and 2020 is not just comparing apples and oranges, it’s more like comparing a tricycle to an 18-wheeler."
You have been shown, by now dozens of times, proof that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. If it was up to me I would delete most of your complaints about this as trolling.
Opinion............still
Of course. Shoot the messenger after all.
What do you think you accomplish by denying something this obvious … with such overwhelming evidence against your ridiculous denial?
He doesnt have a message. That is the point.
With eyes closed and ears plugged, sure.
Ok, you tell us what his point is.
what a pathetic argument they continue to push. Either they won't accept reality, or can't accept it. That is the reality of what cannot be broken down further, so as to engage with persons whom disregard any evidence they don't "like", results in a futile attempt to make them aware. Their awareness can only be to that which they 'wish' to be aware of, and don't we all 'wish' that reality was only that which we 'wished' it to be, cause then it would all be hunky dory....
If one is motivated to defend the indefensible (e.g. defending Trump's traitorous acts after his 2020 election loss), the best choice is to just stay silent. Those who instead try to defend the indefensible accomplish nothing other than broadcast a profound lack of credibility.
A few posts later I offered you 3 bullet points of hard evidence to that effect, all of which are in the public domain and should be common knowledge. They have literally been discussed ad nauseum for years.
And your claims about the links you provided of the so-called illustrious shit show appear to be dubious at best. I'm not interested in wasting time on them at the moment, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if every single one can be shown to be flawed and/or frivolous.
I see you still didn't read what you quoted.
Obvious opinion.
You say that like I should care. You blather on and on with these run-on posts and really still haven't proven your argument.
There was an investigation done (or did you forget about the J6 Shit Show?) and the results are not what you think they are. If the results were what you think the were don't you think there would have been charges? Don't you think he would have not been permitted to run for office?
"produce the evidence"
Read the news for yourself. To list it all here would take up too much time and space.
there's only one type of believable news I want to read or hear about anything maga ...
There were charges . How can you possibly NOT be aware of the United States v Donald Trump case? This case was delayed by the SCotUS and then had to be revised after the SCotUS granted new immunity to PotUS'. So it was filed twice ... and you are not aware of either??:
The SCotUS ran interference for Trump allowing him to remain on the ballot and then delayied his trial to the point where it was impossible to hold the trial prior to the election. You do not know this either??
And that is supposed to equate to guilt? LMAO.
You assume I'm unaware of it. I'm fully aware of it. I'm also fully aware that nothing has come of it. Its been 4 years and to this day there still have been no charges for what you claim - treason and insurrection. You've thrown a tantrum every time I question your proof for that, opinion based, claim.
Come on back to reality. There is NOTHING that prevented him from being on the ballot. Trial delays are common from everything from petty theft to murder. And are completely legal. Just because it's not what YOU think should happen doesn't change anything.
Another dishonest retort. You did not speak about guilt, you spoke of charges:
Your comments have no credibility ... just a waste of space.
[✘]
[✘]
it’s amazing to watch this play out. Yesterday, the Wall Street journal authored a major story with 50 some Biden admin sources detailing how the administration covered up his mental incapacity for years and made presidential decisions for him. While the country unknowingly operated without an actual president, the msm not only uncritically ran stories promoting his fitness (more energy than a 30 year old!) but attacked anyone suggesting the president was deteriorating as a conspiracy theorist, even an independent counsel. The reaction to this incredible news? Attack Rupert Murdoch amid his network for misleading Americans. Unbelievable.
Oh I think they knew.
I think Half the country definitely knew and spoke the truth, 25% knew and lied about it, and 25% believed Biden was as sharp as ever. watching the second and third group complain about Fox, trump and propaganda is something else. Talk about a log in their eye…
Which just makes it that much worse.
The world knew. And took full advantage.
Indeed. It is unbelievable, so let's not believe it until we've done more research ourselves. This is just another reason for all of us to be skeptical of sources with a clearly partisan bent one way or the other, including those owned by Mr. Murdoch and many of the mainstream outlets and online partisan grist mills. They really aren't that difficult to spot.
This from the seeded article is absolutely true:
Absolutely true. But we must overcome this somehow in todays world where most of what we consume now is more aptly characterized as "views", not "news". We can start by turning what little time we have for news consumption to less biased sources like Reuters, C-Span, Border Report, CRS Report, 1440 Newsletter, The Flyover, Daily Business Review, Investopedia, Independent Voter Network, The Economist, USAFacts, USA Spending, or the like. One can check potential source bias with Factcheck.org, or Media Bias Fact Check, both pretty reliable.
You will note that many sources used in this venue by many of the regulars, including the article seeded here, are highly bias one way or the other. And that's OK as long as we realize that, and then make it a point to seek alternate sources to either corroborate or rebut those statements made that sound highly partisan, incorrect, incomplete, or hyperbolic. That is the very point of a venue like NewsTalkers.
If one seeks only sources that support or confirm a predetermined bias, then that is when mis-information, dis-information, exaggeration and hyperbole can distort our perception of the truth. So if we are pressed for time, but want to know the truth, the raw facts without distortion, then we need to make sure we spend that time with the right sources and avoid the tendency for confirmation bias.
This applies if the outlets where one does the research are not confirmation bias sites. Unfortunately, the way we have "trained" our algorithmic helpers in the quest for truth may hinder our search for the same.
It is really difficult for me to trust websites, especially if they claim to be "Free of bias". I have been disappointed too many times.
hat little time we have for news consumption to less biased sources like Reuters, C-Span,
What value do they provide? For four years we had the infirmity of the President covered up and dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" and I don't recall Reuters, or any of the other less biased sources reporting the truth that was obvious to anyone watching from their couch. Either they, as I suspect, knew the truth of his condition and went along with it for partisan reasons, or are so incompetent that they missed a massive story that was right in front of their eyes. If they couldn't get something so important, yet aslo so obvious, correct, why trust them at all?
This rings true. Many people go about their lives and have very little information about politics and players. They trust that things will basically remain the same and that the choice of PotUS does not really make much of a difference. Thus high prices is reason enough for change and change in a binary system means electing whoever is the nominee of the other party.
If Trump pursues his tariff idiocy, one wonders if Trump voters will actually connect the dots between Trump's actions and the new energized inflation they will be experiencing ... or will Trump propaganda shape their perceptions from the truth yet again.
To the first question...they sucked at connecting the dots in grade school so no
Second question....of course they will swallow the swill dripping from trmp's and his cronies' tongues
too stupid and too far from shore to jump over the side now ...
They will not connect the dots.
If the news is so damned important then why is it locked behind a paywall? The United States is actually a news desert where the news has become a commodity to be exploited for profit. So, the public only has access to the fringe hitters, like The New Republic. The New Republic is a lot of things but a source of objective, unbiased news it is not.
As to the complacency toward the Trump transition (from a decidedly left wing viewpoint) the idea that the country is rejecting Joe Biden is so ridiculous that it deserves to be scorned and shunned. But what can the public expect from a source like The New Republic; America's Pravda. The public has rejected the status quo that Joe Biden represents. The country has rejected the politics of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The scolds, nags, and snobs of far left academia have lost their self endowed moral authority to brow beat, guilt trip, and gaslight the public. Blaming Rupert Murdoch will no longer hide the phoniness of that left wing moral authority. The public has recognized that the moral left only objects to be objectionable. That's not Biden's fault. But Biden is a rather clumsy, high profile practitioner of that status quo.
Because someone has to pay for it and advertising ain’t what it used to be. In spite of what Elon Musk would like, most people - even journalists - can’t afford to work for free. Of course, we have a news media corporation partly paid for by taxpayers, but Republicans have been trying to cut off that funding for years.
I don’t think so. I think it’s fair. He does not poll well. As much as I dislike Trump and his 3-ring circus, Biden hasn’t been a very good president. I think pretty much any Republican candidate would have beaten him this time around. That’s why it’s so tragic that none of them could beat Trump.
I agree. The sad reality is that a large plurality of the GOP electorate were Trump acolytes. That gave him early momentum in the primaries and the rest of the candidates could not stop the snowball effect as other GOP members jumped on the bandwagon.
How he was elected in the general election is indeed tragic ... to think that the electorate would put such a proven scoundrel in the most powerful office on the planet —while stupidly voting against their own best interests— is both sickening and concerning.
But, as you note, had the GOP been responsible, neither Trump nor Biden would have been elected.
[deleted][✘]
Since we are discussing news bias - am I correct that the source of this article The New Republic constantly leans left on its view of issues, its editorials and its reporting?
Just wondering
Indeed - See
But so does just about every source used here lean strongly one way or the other. It is the natural tendency of those who participate in online discussion boards to use such sources. The key is to recognize that and respond with less bias sources to the claims made or opinions rendered. And endeavor to use less biased sources or partisan language oneself. Please see my comment at 2.2 above.
Freewill
I asked a simple question and as usual someone had a shit fit rather than just answering the simple question.
The group climbing out of the clown car and asking to be confirmed to cabinet (and other) positions is indeed a total shit show and I have never once said otherwise.
I sincerely hope that all of them (or as many as possible) are not confirmed.
Discussion like this would be possible if you answered the simple question and then delved into why I asked it rather than pitting and preaching from atop the high horse.
Does the media mislead and misinform people? Yes
Does the media leaning right mislead the public more than the media leaning left? Probably not, but they are much more direct and open in thee lies and half-truths they tell.
Is there a media source I trust implicitly to tell the truth? Absolutely not, I listen and read some of them but then I look into matters myself. And I certainly do not look for the most dramatic and obvious lie to decide for or against an issue or position. I do my own research and then speak and/or vote my own conscience - not what someone else thinks I should do.
I have been fiscally conservative and socially moderate my entire adult life and of late I find that neither of the two major parties fir those parameters on a consistent basis.
I participate in discussion here on NT and elsewhere to get input from others and to hear contrasting views, I am not looking for anyone to absolutely agree with my view and am certainly unlikely to agree absolutely with the views of others.
Have a good day
Then we are on precisely the same page my friend.
And you as well.
Same here.
Seriously: What do you think?
Is this article, from your POV, left leaning? Why do you think it is or is not? What do you think the point of the article is? Do you agree or disagree with the author's POV? Why?
Thomas, I know you were addressing Robert with this series of questions, but I'd like to offer my thoughts on these questions if that's OK?
Well since he was asking about left leaning bias of the source of this article, I'd tend to rely on both my experience with that source and the corroboration of my view offered by MBFC, as I linked above. I tend to think Robert is correct when he said what he thinks. See
It is certainly possible that an article from a known biased source could perhaps not be itself biased, but it is fairly easy to detect the bias in this piece. Certainly hyperbolic statements like, " He has nominated—almost but not quite literally across the board—unqualified extremists ", with very little supporting evidence is indicative of a significant partisan bias. In perusing the rundown and bios of the nominations in a recent Newsweek article HERE , or the Reuters piece HERE , I don't see any indication that they are almost all "unqualified extremists". It certainly sounds like some of them are younger than nominations we have seen under other recent presidents (not in itself a bad thing), but with a few exceptions their list of prior experience and positions held seem like a decent basis of qualification for the positions nominated. Some are certainly debatable.
The article also places the blame for the public being woefully misinformed squarely and completely on Rupert Murdoch and the right wing media machine, while completely omitting ANY culpability of other left-leaning sources in terms of spreading falsehoods and misinformation, or simply omitting inconvenient facts that don't support a narrative. Another member here pointed out an example of the mainstream media and left-wing media machine insisting on the fitness of Joe Biden for the office for months or years when it has been discovered that they knew better, and then he proved his lack of fitness on stage in a debate with Trump for all to see. Certainly that is not the only example of left leaning outlets pushing narratives that were not entirely true, or omitting facts in stories that did not fit a particular narrative. Perhaps not to the level that Fox News has over that last decade, but it is as plain as the nose on my face (which is plenty plain).
The point is clearly to discredit all of Trump's nominations and blame the "disastrous transition" (that hasn't even taken place yet) entirely on the right wing media machine for corrupting the electorate with lies and disinformation. That's the upshot right? It's simply a rephrasing of the headline of the article.
I disagree with the parts of the author's POV that are mired in irrational partisan tilt throughout much of the article, but there are parts I agree with, as I indicated previously.
Absolutely true. So why not be more truthful and honest and encourage people to look at less bias sources of information (neither tilting right nor tilting left)? For example why not encourage people who have limited time to learn more about the nominees from less biased sources rather than writing a hatchet piece with snippets of partisan characterizations of them ("auctioneer" as if that is all he's done, "anti-vaxxer" when the man has made it clear time and again that he is not an anti-vaxxer)? Perhaps encourage folks to just spend a little more time researching the qualifications of the nominees oneself, or as an author do a more in-depth study of each nominee and share it with one's readers sans the partisan tilt. Maybe we will find that some of them are indeed unqualified and we can implore our senators to block those nominations. But for goodness sake, an author shouldn't insult the intelligence of his/her readers by insisting that misinformation, disinformation, lies and omissions are completely the domain of the right-wing media alone, and the only reason for a grossly uninformed or misinformed electorate.
Thomas
Are you under the impression that you are cross examining me? if so, you are sadly mistaken.
Answer the question that I asked and perhaps why I asked it and then we could discuss the issue. Don't preach and fire off a line of questioning - only tangentially relevant.
I obviously think the source is left leaning but that is not a problem to me, it is a source not a bible or stone tablets holding the truth of truths.
Perhaps you should present your answers to the questions you posed and then a discussion would be possible.
Shouting and preaching "I am right and you are wrong" will get you nowhere in a discussion with me.
Discussion and debate - you shuld try it sometime.
The New Republic is definitely "left leaning" and the author is a liberal I believe.
I read the entire article carefully and my response to the claim it is biased is LOL.
Is someone who wants to totally rework the US educational system so that it reflects Christian nationalist values an extremist ? Or is it just a matter of opinion ?
What about the seeded article do you want to debate? Lets go.
Really? That is what I get for trying to open a dialogue with you? Bitched out?
Of course it is ok. It would be ok if I didn't agree because this is a public forum and all are welcome to comment. It is, after all, still a free country.
The media outlet is definitely left leaning and the author of the Op/ed piece can be similarly classified, as we can hopefully determine by reading the article. Following your link gives us this information, but it also mentions the credibility of the site as being "High'. This credibility rating is of equal or greater importance than the direction of bias of the commentary, IMO.
Well, it is an opinion column in a left leaning publication, but if one looks at the people whom Trump has nominated, in general it looks as though the qualifications that he wants is "yes-men" and people whose prior statements call into question the very existence of the departments they would be heading. Looking at the Newsweek article, the first name, Elise Stefanik for ambassador to the UN? I am sorry, but she is not the person for that. She is bullheaded and lies almost as much as Trump does. So she fits Trumps qualifications, but she is not in the slightest ambassadorial. The only good thing that I can see coming from the appointment is that she would no longer be my representative in congress. Certainly it is hyperbolic to throw all appointments under the bus as unqualified, but looking through the list I see people with vested interests in the private community heading agencies that would deal with those same companies in the public sphere. These are conflicts of interest that I do not believe the public voted for. But I digress. I don't think that the newsweek article goes into the granularity of their positions to ascertain whether they would be qualified or not. The blurbs read like a LinkedIn bio. The linked Reuters article at least gives passing mention to some of the issues that could be viewed as controversial.
Because that is what the author of this opinion piece sees as the genesis of the breakdown in civil discourse and media literacy. Would this be acceptable for a news column? Not in my estimation, but it is not a news column. My friend blames it on The Simpsons. I really don't care, personally. I feel perfectly adept in sussing out the truth for myself, but using trusted sources to verify that what I think I am seeing is what is actually what I am looking at. It is this trust that we put in sources that can lead us down the garden path. All media, be it legacy or new, needs to be vetted for the accuracy, completeness and credibility of the news that they purport to report. This is the underlying problem IMO. We can't all spend the time to sit down and investigate for ourselves, but in this age of abundant (and largely vapid) information, finding news sources that are truly considerate of that trust is difficult. Trump has spent years demonizing the legacy media as fake news. This has been an attempt at propagandizing. The legacy media was and is to this day mostly trustable. This was and is an overt attempt at control of what people think and is one of the roots of my dislike of the man. It is pure con-man speak, and yet some have fully incorporated it into their beings. I feel very sorry for them.
We have witnessed over the past decade and more the fracturing of the media into a seemingly endless amount of rabbit holes.
Yeah, kinda. I tend to think the disastrous transition is a prediction from a liberal perspective. Certainly from my perspective it will be. I feel that if Trump is allowed to proceed unchecked by the Congress or the Courts that he will gut the federal government and degrade the United States' standing in the international community to the point of irrecoverable harm. I do not think that we will be viewed as the leader of the free world if he is allowed to enact all that he has claimed that he would.
Where did you hear that?
From the Associated Press :
or Reuters
Who am I to believe? Or rather, should I believe the AP, or Reuters, or the guy with a vested interest in changing the countries stance on vaccines and "gutting" the department he is going to be heading?
Thank you for answering my questions.
Is someone who wants to totally rework the US educational system so that it reflects Christian nationalist values an extremist ? Or is it just a matter of opinion ?
Yes and no
I asked a simple question, that you did not answer
And then you fired off six questions
That is not attempting to open a dialogue
I asked for information about the bias level of the source - nothing more nothing less.
So you object to Hegseth's nomnation then.
Absolutely! 100% unqualified and unfit
Indeed. I tend to agree with you on this point.
Not just unqualified but, " almost but not quite literally across the board— unqualified extremists ". But I agree there may be some conflicts of interest that need to be addressed, hence my statement "Some are certainly debatable". Hegseth, for example is one that is clearly not qualified or fit for the position and the skeletons in his closet will likely have him or the Senate decline/reject the nomination. And in will step Ron DeSantis who will be greeted with open arms by the left, yes?
Straight from his mouth in his July 2023 testimony before Congress , (be sure to watch parts 1 & 2 in full context and watch closely those who were trying to badger him and shut him up), and more recently in his long discussions with Joe Rogan and with NPR. He has said so and explained why in just about every interview he has had. In the AP article it says:
He and his family have been fully immunized, except for Covid for reasons he has explained in detail. So clearly he is not anti-vax. He has problems with specific vaccines, and primarily some of their ingredients, and when/how they are administered, and cites several sources for those concerns, certainly some may have been "debunked" according to other sources.
He has similar concerns about processed foods and chemicals and additives in our food supply as well as fluoride in our water supplies. He is simply saying that we should look more closely at those things relative to the otherwise unexplained sharply rising levels of various chronic diseases in this country over the past several decades. Not much different than most naturopaths, nutritionists, and dieticians have been saying for years.
To be clear, what exactly do you feel is his " vested interest ", and where has he said he wishes to " gut the department he is going to be heading "? In fact, if you listen to his positions and the research he has done, his focus is indeed on holding accountable those in the trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry, regulators, and others who most certainly do have a tremendous "vested interest". As he explained in his 2023 testimony, his statements are often taken out of context or twisted by those wishing to discredit him or silence him (while Ms. Wasserman Shultz desperately tried to talk over him), which is ironically what that congressional hearing in July 2023 was all about.
You bet. It is always a pleasure discussing things here with you my friend.
You made assumptions that were not correct about why I was asking what I did. Freewill responded in the way that I meant the questions with cogent and specific answers that were not confrontational but directed towards what he wished to convey. I responded in kind. I truly wanted to know how you felt and asked those questions in good faith.
B leave you are interpreting Thomas incorrectly, as he is a polite and courteius poster here.Now myself, being igknorantz and all, do sometimes fall under your harsh rebuttal exampled description, but I will admit to it as when i feel strongly about a subject and must deal with others that are suspect, as to playing on a shared level with ones who have a completely different version of our shared realities, I find it difficult to believe they believe what they claim to believe, and as to why or how they have come to , in my opinion, their silly and sometimes even stupid opinions.
I understand how sometimes we have knee jerk reactions, and almost all of Thoma'si nteractions I've witnessed, he is not an agitater or a hater. So if you need be, bitch all you want at me, cause it is why i am here. N Joy
I agree with half of the statement. It is not because people are not read into the news as they once were. Before Trump almost no one ever cared about a presidents cabinet picks. I don't think I have ever seen such scrutiny before.
Speaking for myself I have never cared who a president picked for his cabinet. He is president and he gets who he wants. I think that is shared by many others. The difference is not that people are no longer read in, the difference is trump
If a PotUS picks someone who is clearly unqualified for a cabinet position, why would you not care? Cabinet positions are often very important seats and the decisions made by the cabinet member affects the nation.
In particular, how can you not care that Trump would seek to put Hegseth in charge of one of the most important functions of our nation ... our national defense?
Do you think it is healthy for the electorate to be apathetic??
Does that mean you defer to the PotUS and just accept whatever he decides? Do you think that is a healthy practice ... to simply accept without question a PotUS' actions simply because the PotUS has the right to take the action??
The electorate should hold a PotUS accountable for their actions. If a PotUS engages in the kind of irresponsible actions that Trump has already started while president-elect, the electorate should act as soon as it can to help mitigate this. This can happen formally in the midterms, but can occur sooner through people expressing their disapproval via social media, polls, contacting representatives, etc.
Holding officials accountable —especially the PotUS— is fundamental to a healthy democracy.
As opposed to what, exactly?
Based on some of the talking heads on cable news and some dems/Trump haters my guess would be incessant whining leading to an ulcer in many cases.
I have a life and don't get panties in a twist over something I have no control over
Most cabinet decisions don't have to go through the pres?
It is easy. If he gets through the established process and gets the position he gets the position. That is why we have a process for the nominees
I think it is healthy for someone to be as involved or uninvolved as they want to be and not involved because someone tells them they should be. What I do think is unhealthy is letting a politician or party get so entrenched in someones head that all critical thinking or objectivity are lost.
"Elections have consequences." That does not mean you have to like everything he does, but you do have to accept he has the right given to him by Americans to make the decision.
Yes, hold people accountable at the voting booth. If you believe people expressing their disapproval via social media, polls, contacting representatives, etc make a difference by all means go for it. I have other things to do
Once every election except for those that choose not to vote.
You can keep panties straight while operating as a responsible citizen rather than being entirely apathetic. A responsible, non-apathetic citizen would hold officials accountable:
It is entirely against the principles of democracy for someone to hold the apathetic attitude which effectively leaves politicians to do as they will with no fear of accountability. Apathy is a key factor for why we have such shit representatives today.
You already gave that opinion that to which I responded If you believe people expressing their disapproval via social media, polls, contacting representatives, etc make a difference by all means go for it.
I already said they should be held accountable at the voting polls. Do you read what I write?
You either care or you do not care. If you believe they should be held accountable then you care.
Make up your mind.
Why would that be binary and not on a continuum?
That is a silly comment.
For most people I think there would be. But similar to if you don't trash trump with every waking breath you support him if you don't care like they think you should it must mean you are apathetic and don't care at all.
Well, when an argument becomes indefensible from any logical perspective, it's tough to avoid the temptation to play the man instead of the ball.
In their defense, it's not like they invented any of this. These are the exact same tactics that have been used by fundamentalist Christians for centuries.
One of the first steps in the process is to reduce as much as possible into binary absolutes. I.e. "You either love Jesus or you're of the devil." From there you can start working on what they have to do to prove that they love Jesus and are not of the devil.
If you constantly defend / make excuses for Trump, you support him.
Nothing quite like trying to get you to defend things you never said. Weak tactic used only when the discussion is lost.
Yes, you have stated that opinion a hundred times at least. What you don't do (and maybe you can't) is differentiate between not buying into the Trump hysteria(calling it out) and making excuses for Trump. What I would find perplexing is someone supporting Trump and then not voting for him.
Certainly not voting for Trump and being clear about why is proof that one does not support him. And I for one have been very clear here about why I have not and would never vote for a person like Trump. I even went so far as to break with the Republican Party and reregistered as an independent when he won the primary the first time.
Yet I too have been accused of making excuses for, defending, or supporting Trump, or being MAGA, simply because I call out some of the more irrational or extreme claims about the man or things that he has done or supposedly will do, or where I have criticized his opponents for reasons I support with facts, logic, and reason. It’s all part of the game when one endeavors to reason with some people who do not wish to be reasoned with.
In my experience TiG is not one of those people. To the extent that one is honest and straight forward with him and supports one’s position with facts and a rational demeanor, I find him to be one of the most thoughtful and reasonable people in this venue. He has never accused me of defending or supporting Trump because we listen and talk to and not past each other. We don’t always agree but we regard each other’s thoughts or opinions with a level of mutual respect.
Had your comment been directed at a number of others here and not to TiG, I would have been inclined to vote it up.
Of course you are welcome to your opinion. I have rarely if ever seen a discussion take that path and find it difficult to believe it is always everyone else. I would expound but I am confident I would end up with a ticket.
If someone claims, for example, that Trump is going to destroy democracy, operate as a dictator his entire term, cause WWIII, etc. you will never see me criticize their interlocutor for countering that with a sound argument.
However, if someone criticizes Trump for some of his ridiculous nominations or for extemporaneously issuing an outrageous public threat to our trading partners prior to even having a private discussion with them and you make excuses for Trump, then you are being a Trump apologist ... you are supporting Trump.
As it turns out, there are several who will make excuses for any criticism of Trump. Those who do that and then claim they are not Trump supporters are kidding themselves if they think people do not recognize their duplicity.
So, by your logic, if a defense attorney constantly defends murderers, then that attorney, by default according to leftist views, supports the murderer.
Weird logic.
Do you not understand that the job of a defense attorney is to put forth the best defense for their client ... even if they believe the client is guilty?
Your analogy is confused.
Here is a better analogy. Let's say that someone claims Biden never should have run for reelection. If someone wrongly defends Biden's (clearly bad) choice, then it would be quite appropriate to say that the defender is supporting Biden.
Now, per my statement. Those who wrongly defend every bone-headed move and wrong-doing of Trump are supporting Trump. It would be different if they only defended unfair criticism (e.g. claims that Trump is going to be a dictator). But that is not what is going on. There are some (like you) who defend Trump no matter what; basically that Trump can do no wrong.
It was a nice attempt at goal post moving, but a failure.
I responded to EXACTLY what you posted, responded with a correct analogy, then you move the goal post by posting something that would more fit your narrative.
[deleted][✘]
Another illustration of the Trump technique of keep repeating a lie enough and people will eventually believe you.
[deleted][✘]
His argument was sound and carefully picked apart the intellectually lazy argument he was confronting.
By definition, a defense attorney who is being paid by the defendant has an obligation to put forth as good a defense as they are legally able, and they are not forced to divulge incriminating evidence even if they do have it.
Support: verb - give assistance to, especially financially; enable to function or act.
A defense attorney is paid to "give assistance to" their client aka paid to support them in their attempt to prove their innocence ir mitigate potential responsibility.
So let's look at your lazy argument:
"if a defense attorney constantly defends murderers, then that attorney, by default according to leftist views, supports the murderer."
If that defense attorney is doing it for free or isn't the defendants attorney and is just an attorney who blogs about cases and gives his opinions, then yes, if he is defending murderers that he knows are guilty based on the evidence, then he is supporting murderers.
If that defense attorney is being paid for his "support" in the defense of a murderer, then his personal opinion on murderer is irrelevant. He gives support because he's paid to and that's his job.
If Trump was paying you to defend him against accusations of malfeasance and wrongdoing, then I would not claim you are just some random Trump supporter carrying water for an obvious criminal. You would be a working defense attorney or paid media mouthpiece doing your job.
If you're here defending Trump for free, then you're a Trump supporter because to do otherwise with zero motive would be frankly moronic. There are NO objective observers who just weigh in on Trumps behalf because they see some great injustice being done to dirty Donald or that the Mango Mussolini is actually being wrongly accused and viciously maligned with fake accusations of sexual assault and tax evasion and inciting the attack on the Capital.
[deleted][✘]
BTW… there is a difference between supporting/defending someone and easily shooting down the triggered responses from reactionaries who simply do not like Trump because….well….they don’t know why.
[deleted][✘]
I have yet to hear from someone who hates Trump and doesn't know why. I despise the man and have expressed my reasoning on numerous occasions as have just about every other person I read here on NT that dislike felons, tax cheats and accused sexual predators. On top of those reasons to dislike Trump I believe based on my own eyes that he did in fact incite an attempted insurrection. I also have heard, in his own words, what he likes to do to women he finds attractive and how he'd probably be dating his daughter if only he weren't her father. Donald Trump is the epitome of vile criminal scum bag and those who recognize this simple fact and have expressed how they feel about him based on his character and actions are flabbergasted at the fact that there are others out there who just shrug their shoulders at those facts and make excuses or reject the facts completely in order to bend over backwards to carry water for such a despicable human being.
Those who dislike Trump do so for very valid reasons and they have expressed those reasons over and over, apparently to the point where all the supposedly morally superior religious conservative defenders of Donald Trump don't even bat an eye being reminded of their hero and savior saying he "grabs women by the pussy". It's no longer a bug, it's a feature as these shameless scum lovers lap up Donalds character flaws like slurping up a glob of chicken fat that started to drip over the top of the grease bucket they call the Republican party.
I'm going to vote that part up by upvoting my own comment.
‘On top of those reasons to dislike Trump I believe based on my own eyes that he did in fact incite an attempted insurrection’
Obviously you know more than actual prosecutors and zero of them have charged him with that. Maybe that tells you something. I suggest you approach these prosecutors with you r ‘evidence’ of insurrection.
‘I also have heard, in his own words, what he likes to do to women he finds attractive and how he'd probably be dating his daughter if only he weren't her father. Donald Trump is the epitome of vile criminal scum bag and those who recognize this simple fact and have expressed how they feel about him based on his character and actions are flabbergasted at the fact that there are others out there who just shrug their shoulders at those facts and make excuses or reject the facts completely in order to bend over backwards to carry water for such a despicable human being.’
Nice rant but I see nothing where you despise another president for sniffing children and taking showers with his own pre teen daughter. Do you not feel that is despicable, or are you OK with it because the one that did it had a D?
’It's no longer a bug, it's a feature as these shameless scum lovers lap up Donalds character flaws like slurping up a glob of chicken fat that started to drip over the top of the grease bucket they call the Republican party.’
Ironic considering you support someone who engaged in activity above and is probably a corrupt, name influencing criminal that gained millions in kick backs for return favors, most if which while Vice President. Have you ever wondered how the ‘poorest person in the Senate’ is able to afford 2 beach houses, both worth millions each? I’m sure you have s/
Just because Al Capone was never charged with the many murders everyone knows were at his command doesn't mean Capone was innocent of those crimes. Just because the court demands a higher level of evidence doesn't mean we're not allowed to have opinions of people's character based on their actions. We are allowed to use circumstantial evidence and our own eyewitness testimony to come to our own conclusions as to someone's motives whether provable in court or not. So my claim stands, I believe what I saw President Trump do that day was not only a complete dereliction of his Presidential duties but at minimum a callous disregard for our constitution and our elected representatives to such a degree that in my opinion it did meet the standard for inciting an attempted insurrection. Trump told them to march down there and fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country anymore. Then he watched the insurrection unfold and did nothing for several hours when an immediate response to call off any violence and to tell his people that's not what he meant and that when he said fight like hell he meant it metaphorically or at the ballot box, not breaking through the doors of our capital and attacking hundreds of capital police officers and chase our elected officials around with zip ties in hand.
Over 2 and a 1/2 HOURS later... attempted insurrection has failed. Donald comes out and tells his supporters to go home, finally.
Never forget.
trump and his accomplices will pay, or his supporters will ...
It's fascinating how nobody seems concerned that our current HHS, HUD, Transportation, and Interior Secretaries are token minority career politicians with little or no relevant experience. Resume's only matter when Trump is involved.
That includes me, BTW. I don't give a shit.
In a remarkable, completely unexpected, downright flabbergasting turn of events, none of these people have impacted my life in any noticeable way.... which I think may be Elon and Vivek's point.
Seems that way.
Do you give a shit about Hegseth as Secretary of Defense?
"Nothing matters"
[✘]
Not particularly, no. Why do you?
Because the position of Secretary of Defense is one of the most important cabinet positions.
Because Hegseth is clearly a very poor choice in terms of character, experience, and competence.
Because it is rational to care about having responsible, competent individuals in charge of extremely important facets of our government.
Seems like one of the key Trump apologist tactics is to pretend that nothing Trump does really matters. When faced with defending the indefensible, just pretend that there really is no problem ... so no defense is needed.
Why not just pick cabinet positions by random lottery? After all, if it does not matter who is in charge of major portions of the government, there is no need to take the process of filling positions seriously.
Is it? How many Americans, without Google, can name the last 3?
Well.... most Princeton educated Bronze Star recipients are....
Riiiiight. So, for example, if we're going to put somebody over roughly 1/5 of our GDP, he should definitely NOT be a token hire career politician.
Xavier Becerra says hello, BTW.
Or.... in the real world.... the key tactic of Trump hysteria mongers is to pretend that anyone who isn't outraged and/or fearful about every single thing he does is an "apologist".
It's a tried and tested tactic of religious zealots.... declaring anyone who refuses to participate in their particular brand of lunacy to be either lost, evil, or otherwise inferior. It would probably work better for modern liberal zealots if it hadn't been so overused by Christians for the last thousand years.
In ubiquitous din of alarms about anything Trump, I've lost track of which specific "indefensible" you're fixated on at the moment. You cry "wolf" so often it's difficult to differentiate.
Because that's not in the Constitution.
Odd how you don't seem to object to any of Biden's cabinet choices, despite many having greater degrees of the same flaws you complain about with Trump's.
Why should anyone take your comment seriously if you even question the fact that the Secretary of Defense is one of the most important cabinet positions?
Get serious and we can talk.
[✘]
Libertarian positions dont cut it, never have never will.
We have to tire of talking to nihilists.
Is it so important that the SecDef should probably let the PotUS know when he is going to be out of pocket?...
Ironic comment given that Hegseth is a religious zealot.
Which position is that, John?
On several levels, it appears.
There is also irony in the idea that religious zealots routinely recognize the behavior in others but not themselves.
Very well said.
In other words he has some good points
After the WSJ article came out about many of the dems hiding just how bad Biden was during his tenure yet lying to American people to try and get a puppet regime do you think they should all be held accountable? Should they be disqualified from holding office? Or will dems and Trump haters continue to say there really was no problem...so no defense needed?
Obviously they didn't think filling the position of President was a serious matter as long as they won.
Obviously they didn't think filling the position of President was a serious matter as long as they won.
I cannot get into the minds of anyone who actually wanted to get a puppet regime just for the sake of having one. But I totally reject the 'winning is the only thing that matters' mindset. Getting the best person for the job is what matters.
It is the partisan win-only mindset which, in part, produced Trump as the president.
But you are yet again deflecting. My point was that it is rational to care about having responsible, competent individuals in charge of extremely important facets of our government and Trump nominating Hegseth is both irresponsible and irrational.
But, of course, rather than try to defend this obviously horrible choice by Trump, best to just claim that you do not care and move along.
Some might opine that this is exactly what the left says of the right and the right says of the left when discussing political differences
Interesting
That is pretty much what I said in 7 before you decided to take us on a journey to nowhere. I didn't care who president's chose before Trump and I am certainly not going to start caring because of trump, or you.
Hegseth is a Christian nationalist. You seem to find that insignificant.
Is it Princeton, Harvard, or his Bronze Star to which object?
And that is obvious. What else is obvious, before Trump came along and was somehow elevated and elected, one very rarely need care about these appointments. As it was extremely rare to find nominees so unqualified, with conflict of interests, or whose interests were in direct defiance of what that position actually regulated, thus giving a Fox hen house situation, that Trump has quite effectively achieved whilst do many still have not a clue, about how so many, have been blatantly deceived. Trump is an over achiever at making peep holes blind to he, their very own deceiver, and as they assume that they need not condemn him because he upsets others who do protestith, too much they claim, as they protestith not at enough for fear of being seen obscene while behind the scenes, there is far more wrong doings but because not always seen and proven, they pretend it is not happening and won't capitulate to that which they probably know to be true, due to a reluctance to not knowing in the first place, that which they should have knew.
He worked at fox, that should be disqualifying all by itself. S/
Opinions do vary...
Or maybe, accusations of sexual assault, monetary funds mismanagement in former positions, or his accused drunken behavior ?
Maybe his mom should write him another note, cause Trump like he, has a way with women, and there is a known problem with as much in the military, and since he has inside information, do you believe he is at a better vantage, to see how to best undress, the situation he would cover, under the cover, of an undercover infiltrator doing the dirty business of our elected traitor to the trades, as embarrassing is American Made in this particular charade.
It does appear that the primary objection is that Trump nominated him, followed by the fact that he is (unsurprisingly) conservative.
I think if someone tries hard enough they can make a case for or against almost anyone. I assume that is why there are background checks and senate interviews. But it seems these are also getting very political focusing less on qualifications. I recall supreme court justices would get confirmed with 80 or more votes. Those days are gone. But I digress.
Yep, trump
as do assumptions of asses possessing the ability to change positions faster than freezing molasses even whence after shown, how they will still bemoan that which pains their mind of thinking, as sometimes it amazes they can't see without blinking, as the lubrication enhances the vacation their often not thinking, they are on, for that far gone is the foregone conclusion that sum will never see due to the confusion about that witch was cast to allure the spells of what spell in be, can pronounce when spelt is the illusion that they cannot help but be victim to see, cause it's as easy as A, B, See watt the herd did anticipate, cause 1, 2, three rings of circus carnival bark is reason two quarters of change does not rearrange the third period of overtime pay, because over time, pay meant back for those not given the slack, required to learn from that witch in turn, gets floated down stream of thoughtlessness of what has been lost, when so many see not the cost, as they are indifferent to seeing what is lost, when they choose to be 'right' without caring about the cost they pay as our country is driven away by an uber selfish Constitution denier air time friar attempting to Lyft, US All down to where he would desire as he and others doubts do and did conspire, as they prove , ignorance, for those they do hire, and acceptance by so many, whom can't differentiate between the frozen, and the fire, from which we will be lowered with each forwarded wrong hire, and as we may doubt this was ones chosen desire, it is clear they are not always in charge, of who decides that which spells cast the character of the character actors playing the parts to assume the whole asses with the void in the center, are those without the smarts, though their actions will leave US smarting
and the retarding of thoughts used to think, should possibly cause others to think
but, for some to think, it requires others to approach the brink
dontcha think ? No really, i'll inquire once again, don't you think ???
You dishonestly ignored my sarcasm.
Yes, you again offer that you are willingly apathetic. So, as I noted @7.1.4:
A responsible, non-apathetic citizen would hold officials accountable:
It is entirely against the principles of democracy for someone to hold the apathetic attitude which effectively leaves politicians to do as they will with no fear of accountability. Apathy is a key factor for why we have such shit representatives today.
Are those the only characteristics of Hegseth you recognize? I also do not object to his age, politics, gender, infidelity, hair color, height, weight, birth state, race, or the fact that he worked for Fox News.
Do the math.
Some of the senator's concerns ( my key concern is not listed but some of my secondary concerns are) :
Do you have any concerns about Hegseth as Secretary of Defense? Or are you sticking with apathy?
You are conflating not caring about who the nominee for cabinet member is and holding officials accountable. They are two very separate things and it is dishonest and pathetic even attempting to make the jump. Also trying to claim not caring about one area that someone thinks they should makes a person an apathetic citizen or irresponsible is not worthy of being taken seriously.
I am done with this sad attempt at pretzel logic.
Step one of being a responsible member of democracy is to be critical of (to understand and actually care about) the choices made by elected representatives. If you do not care who Trump appoints then you have no grounds to hold him or them accountable; you did not care!
It would seem that your (not just you) little bullshit game is to avoid dealing with the irresponsible Trump decisions by claiming that you do not care or that none of this really matters. Similar to the 'I have not decided who I will vote for' bullshit.
I doubt that pathetic ploy is fooling anyone.
See 7.2.35
Especially the last sentence
Of course not. But they do exist, and pretending they aren't relevant is... what's the word.... "irrational".
The math seems to indicate a significant enough correlation between "Trump does something" and "TiG now objects to that thing" that causation seems impossible to deny.
Why would those be the only choices?
Once again, you attempt to reduce an issue to a binary.
Where do I even imply they are not relevant? More fantasy from you.
Your math then sucks.
Where did I suggest they were?
You deflect instead of dealing with the question.
Your comments are not serious.
You'll notice you are only ever allowed two choices.
You state that nominating a man with those qualities is necessarily "irrational and irresponsible".
I'm sure it's uncomfortable for you.
You offered only two choices (again). Have you already forgotten?
I recognize the question for what it is, and I refuse to participate in your feeble attempts to rationalize your narrow mindedness.
Hard not to notice.
Nowhere do I state that those qualities mean the nomination are irrational and irresponsible.
What utterly stupid tactics you now use. Hegseth has another obvious quality such as being male. Per your pathetic tactic, that would mean I think it is irrational and irresponsible to nominate a male for Secretary of Defense.
Get a better hobby other than deflecting from serious questions with feeble quips.
You state repeatedly that the nomination of a man with those qualities is irrational and irresponsible.
Which has no bearing on his qualification as SecDef. What an utterly stupid tactic you use.
You have (once again) painted yourself into an indefensible corner and now commence a feeble attempt to distract your way out.
Deliver the quote where I stated that those qualities [Jack@7.2.25: "Princeton, Harvard, or his Bronze Star"] are what make Hegseth an irrational and irresponsible choice.
Nice try.
Deliver the quote where I said you did.
So let's now illustrate your sophistry:
I made it clear that those [ Princeton, Harvard, or his Bronze Star] are ( obviously ) NOT the characteristics of Hegseth that make his nomination irrational and irresponsible. And to emphasize this clearly I listed even more characteristics that do not make his nomination irrational and irresponsible.
Does it occur to you that someone could have outstanding academic credentials and receive all sorts of awards and be unfit to serve in a particular capacity? That possessing some positive qualities does not wipe out more relevant negatives? Of course you know this. And you likely realize how bad a choice Hegseth is. But defending Trump requires pathetic, dishonest tactics like the faux obtuseness based sophistry in which you have engaged.
Secretaries of Defense since 2000
William S. Cohen (January 24, 1997 – January 20, 2001)
Donald H. Rumsfeld (January 20, 2001 – December 18, 2006)
Robert M. Gates (December 18, 2006 – July 1, 2011)
Leon E. Panetta (July 1, 2011 – February 26, 2013)
Chuck Hagel (February 27, 2013 – February 17, 2015)
Ashton B. Carter (February 17, 2015 – January 20, 2017)
James N. Mattis (January 20, 2017 – December 31, 2018)
Patrick M. Shanahan (Acting; January 1, 2019 – June 23, 2019)
Mark T. Esper (July 23, 2019 – November 9, 2020)
Christopher C. Miller (Acting; November 9, 2020 – January 20, 2021)
Lloyd J. Austin III (January 22, 2021 – Present)
With the exception of Shanahan (Trump's interim SoD) these men all had substantial experience in the federal government with a concentration of experience dealing with the military or in high-ranking positions that would give a broad perspective of the complexities of US operations and the role of the DoD. Even Shanahan had substantial experience as a private citizen due to decades of working with the DoD as a Boeing executive.
Cohen and Hagel have the least DoD related experience but were long-standing senators.
Even Trump's first-term picks had good qualifications for the position.
And then we have this:
Pete Hegseth
Was pushed out for misuse of funds, womanizing and drinking.
Under what fantasy is this guy qualified to lead the armed forces of the United States? A high-level strategic and tactical executive position controlling our national defense.
Nice academic credentials and achieving Major in the National Guard does not compare to the experience of the historical Secretaries of Defense.
Then add in character, ethics, and utter failure in relatively easy executive positions and one would have to be irrational / irresponsible to nominate such a person for one of the most important cabinet positions.
So make your argument.
Present an actual argument for why Hegseth is a rational, responsible choice to be the next Secretary of Defense.
Yes, questions do not always a statement make, but if you might, please let us in on that is which to be implied by your inference that you used , as in replied, cause what is the purpose of the posed question if not to ascertain an acceptance or rejection, or possibly have you denied that you tried to set forth an implication of TiG that he had somehow implied that "Princeton, Harvard, or his Bronze Star" are reasons one would use to disqualify an accused sexual assaulter, foundation funds mis-manager and or alcohol abuser, cause the latter are why this Fox former should be another out the door Republican unqualified, by a former potUS, who is also unqualified, yet, defied is what to many did coincide to elect the disaster master class dysfunction known as the Donald
4 some Irish clown named Ronald was a far better choice than this source of moral decay, that emits a stench that won't go away, yet is blindly defended irregardless of offense, each and every day and with about every inappropriate word he does ,say, isn't it about time for Trump to tweet out and write something else not right, as the culture is a cult with the chore of deciphering any and every letter sent, telling US all what he actually meant cause there should ought to have been a clause whereas in case of a culture shocker, being elected by mentality affected by a media blitz expected to tackle the problem of peoples being aware of what it is that is real, instead of another lie drawn from lets make the art of the deal, where Monty Hall interviews silly attired contestants, and a tempts to see if any actually know what is really real, cause after the invention of faux fax machined and groomed are R[s] traversing the slopes to see and ski ass they lodge into the minds that don't, While they marry Lies at the altered inception of mass blurry to bury in a hurry, the past and present future here and now, so as the grave isn't disturbed, while disturbing are the grave and dire consequences of ignoring the ignorance , that will result in the downfall of a doomed experiment, due to the influence of wealth and monies spent, to educate into stupidity an electorate that was once the epitome of all that yearned to be free, while free falling from grace at an unprecedented pace due to so many not able to admit and face. So keep defending and contributing to what eye B leave many see, just as you, yet they continue to do, just as you, knowing more than they pretend, cause it all doesn't matter in the end if you are handsomely compensated for the lies via monetary means or is it power that deems, one to be successfully viewed, cause no one wishes to admit, they've seen Donald nude, but when the emperor has not clothes, perhaps a robe to keep US from being exposed, or, in the dark room....
You must place some significance on that fact, but I certainly do not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his qualification or lack of qualification for the position.
Why do you find it significant that he is a Christain nationalist is relation to being SecDef?
Religious beliefs, gender, race, age, color etc should play no role in the qualification process in my opinion. Do you disagree?
... yeah, no conflict of interests there ...
devangeical
Do you object to Christians or nationalists?
Personally I just object to people who are unqualified.
Christian nationalism has an INTENTION to lead to a theocracy. NO government official should be intending to lead us to a theocracy. You dont seem to know anything about it.
Age matters. Other than that it depends on the beliefs. I have a problem with someone who believes our planet is less than 10,000 years old, that evolution is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists, etc. Or who believes God chooses national leaders. Or who holds that their decisions should be aligned with their religious beliefs. Similarly, I have a problem with someone who believes in cultish notions such as Scientology.
But gender, race, color, etc. should be irrelevant. What matters IMO for a job like Secretary of Defense is executive experience ... in particular with the DoD, stability, integrity, character, and the philosophy they hold about national defense.
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
Go away.
Nothing to see here.
So sorry you were inconvenienced.
Move along now.
There is a show starting in 15 minutes down there...
We are finishing four years of a president who was clearly unqualified to perform the job on its most basic level and the people who covered that up/defended it are now worried about the boxes certain nominees can check off? Please.
a totally ignorant comment ...