Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 30 of 31     «   Prev   27   28   29   30   31   Next
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Reply with quote  #436 
With this one, I don't really get the central issue. It seems like one of those points raised in the abortion debate as some huge problem for the pro-life cause, but it relies on pro-choice premises. People who are charged with a crime and remanded in custody are routinely separated from their children? Isn't that what went on here? A temporary separation whilst their parents were being charged and processed for illegal entry. Most of the children who went missing seem to have been with relatives, who are trying to make sure they aren't deported, by disappearing off the radar. It could no doubt have been handled much better - there seems to have been incompetence spanning several administrations and branches of government - but the core of the outrage seems to be based on premises that assume illegal immigration isn't that important, that illegal immigrants shouldn't be treated like other law breakers. Although I did hear that illegal entry is what Americans call a misdemeanour, so perhaps that doesn't usually risk being remanded in custody? Though, in Britain, those who have no fixed abode are often refused police bail, at least, even for a lesser crime. A magistrate won't want to separate parents from children for lesser offences, unless there is a high chance that granting bail will mean the accused doesn't turn up for further court appearances (which actually is the case here).

Also, as I understand it, this was also going on under the Obama administration. Indeed, not only did some of the original photos used to create the scandal come from before Trump was in power, but Obama's DHS security, Jeh Johnson, at least partially defended the Trump administration.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Reply with quote  #437 
Larison has a good, short piece about how dangerous the mindset behind Trump's recent Twitter inanity on Iran is:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/trump-seeks-confrontation-for-its-own-sake/
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,991
Reply with quote  #438 
Those joining the anti-Trump hysterics don't realise the sort of people they're on the same side as the Black Lives Matter crowd, Linda Sarsour and CAIR. They don't want to see that Marxist and Islamist agendas are driving a great deal of the hysteria against Western society in general.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,573
Reply with quote  #439 
As Wessexman said, 'Didn't CNN have a reputation to maintain?', and, I would add, a number of other news outlets, including many of the owners of AP? Factual reporting doesn't seem to be important if it gets in the way of attacking Trump. A perfectly good case can be made that he is unfit to be President (indeed, unfit to be dogcatcher of Podunk), is quite probably the worst POTUS in history, and is a disaster for these United States, without resorting to TDS. My wife has a severe case of TDS. If I point out any historical fact that contradicts her narrative, she dismisses it, just as Trump does criticism, as 'fake'.
__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Reply with quote  #440 
It's all about making Trump's critics the problem, when they're not. Trump is the problem. Some people we don't like criticise Trump, therefore we can't criticise Trump? Er, doesn't follow. Some criticism of Trump is over-the-top, hysterical and non-factual, therefore all criticism of Trump is .... That doesn't follow either. There's so much criticism of Trump, it's impossible to validly assess and criticise Trump? Nope. What if there's so much criticism of Trump because there's so much to criticise? And I don't actually fall in with the routine acceptance that all the liberal media have been irresponsible in their attacks and should be discounted. I think their horror is perfectly reasonable and proportionate. Not in all cases, no, but neither is it ridiculously overblown and non-fact-based in all cases, as seems to be the default assumption.

But even with a reply like this the technique is working, the focus kept firmly on the critics rather than the rogue President who must at all costs be shielded from critical examination. It would be good if this thread could shift away from its habitual subject, media sins, to its nominal subject, Donald Trump. But I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,573
Reply with quote  #441 
This is the sort of thing my wife eats up, How much worse can Trump get? This was written by a graduate of the US Military Academy, the son of a career officer in the US army, and the grandson of a highly decorated WWII general. He's absolutely insane, but my wife buys it all.
__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Reply with quote  #442 
Hmmm, that's fourteen minutes I'd have been holding my breath for. Not long but still impossible unless I were a sperm whale or some such. Anyway, while alarmist and a touch hysterical, not to mention missing the benefit of careful fact-checking (Nixon, for example, was never impeached; he would have been, but got his resignation in first), the piece does raise some genuine causes for alarm, such as this:

Quote:
But it’s this statistic that’s most shocking in the Post poll of Republicans. “52 percent said that they would support postponing the 2020 election, and 56 percent said they would do so if both Trump and Republicans in Congress proposed this,” according to the Post.

Wow. Now I wouldn't suggest, as the article explicitly does, that Trump has it in mind to cancel the democratic process and make himself permanent president by fiat. Surely even he isn't stupid enough to think for one second that would work. But it is really scary if a majority, albeit slight, of his supporters don't actually see any problem with such a proposition.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,573
Reply with quote  #443 
Actually, Peter, I caught that little error about Nixon as well. It just tells me that TDR is pathological. If Truscott were a younger man, I'd just accuse him of not doing his research, but he is my age. He was a grown man during the Nixon era. His memory is obviously affected by his hatred of Trump.
__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Reply with quote  #444 
Peter, you must not watch CNN. They have given up all professionalism and spend much of their time criticising everything Trump does, right down to how many scoops of ice cream he has. CNN is an extreme case, but much of the mainstream media has at least followed down this route, abandoning much of their concern for professionalism, objectivity, and even basic truth at times. The irony is that there has rarely been a time when such hysteria was less needed. They could be rigourously professional and Trump would still make himself look ridiculous.

There may be some, no doubt, who use the real faults of the media to deflect from Trump, but that isn't the case on this site. Most of us are able to see the real faults of both. No one here is much of a Trump fan. I think he has governed largely as a normal Republican, partly because #resistance have given him no choice, but I despise him as person. I try not to talk personally too often about politicians. But Trump seems to lack redeeming features.

But the faults of the media are as important. Not only is truth itself important, but the mainstream media wields a lot of influence. Their fall to complete partisanship and unprofessional, sometimes even dishonesty, is not a small thing. Besides, as a conservative there are extra reasons to not want to let the media get away with its Trump derangement. Most especially the media often blurs Trump with the conservative cause, or the conservative position on key issues. Very often, when the media criticises Trump on immigration, for example, they don't stick to just his words or even his policies, but in some way try to associate broader conservative positions on abortion. In general, the Trump derangement syndrome in the media is entangled with left-liberal ideology, so it would be foolish for a conservative not to hold the media too account here, just as they should Trump.

Anyway, it seems to me the relationship of the media to Trump fits into the general topic of this thread. The quality of sources about Trump seems an eminently sensible discussion. It's source analysis/historiography!
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Reply with quote  #445 
The article that Jovan posted was the rant of either a totally unscrupulous partisan hack or someone frankly unbalanced. It was a screed beginning with a hodgepodge of all the criticisms of Trump the author could think of, with no thought to balance, proportionality, or even truth (he implies, for example, the separation of families at the border began with Trump). He managed to overlook that some of the things he criticises Trump for, like the tax cuts and repealing Obamacare, are standard Republican policies, whereas the Trump's move to protectionism has a lot in common with some of Sander's policies. Then, perhaps in some kind of self-referential masterstroke, it goes from bad to worse, entering the realms of conspiracy theory.
Not even CNN would hire this guy.

Even the part quoted by Peter, whilst interesting (if true and the poll is no outlier), surely requires some mention of #resistance on the other side, for balance.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Reply with quote  #446 
I don't actually watch any television at all. I have a set, but it lives in the bottom of a cupboard and mostly just sits there gathering dust. Nor do I read newspapers, I just read articles linked in Google's daily collection, only those that attract my interest of course, and also those that may be linked here and I either want to read or have to before replying. But from this process I have rarely come across anything that merits the kind of criticisms made above. I repeat, it does not seem to me that the media is the problem here.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,991
Reply with quote  #447 
Turkey is the latest country to feel the wrath of Trump, and not undeservedly:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1022502465147682817

Under Erdogan, the mask is off the police state in Turkey (which it never really ceased being in any case). Furthermore, Turkey is not only an unreliable NATO "ally", it is also alienating Israel and Arab nations alike. Like Russia, Turkey's neo-imperial ambitions will not be tolerated by neighbours.

However, Turkey is not the only NATO member state I'd take issue with either. Norway is one NATO member state with a long record of duplicitous foreign policies:
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/01/norwegians/
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Reply with quote  #448 
Peter, I think we're not going to see eye to eye on this issue.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Reply with quote  #449 
Shouldn't think so. That's no reason for us not to continue amicable discussion, though, in the interests of which I will acknowledge that your #444 did make some serious and worthwhile points. It occurs to me that I never responded to the question of whether CNN or whoever it was does not also have a reputation to protect. Sure, but it is not quite the same kind of reputation as that which AP needs to preserve. CNN and the majority of public news organs are expected to be opinionated and to follow particular lines of thought, namely those identified with the largest section of their readership. They are expected also to be truthful and at least attempt to be balanced and fair, but allowances are made and you read them with appropriate filters in place.

And this applies whether the news organ is left, right or sits uneasily in the middle. AP on the other hand is expected to be a source of fact and nothing else. And if it distorts or invents fact it becomes worthless. So that's where I see a difference. I imagine Trump's Erdogan comments were as intemperate as usual, though certainly I have little regard for the Turkish president and consider him a dangerous and untrustworthy man. Looking east of Turkey, I am concerned also as to how things will turn out in Pakistan, where Imran Khan appears likely to become prime minister, if he hasn't already.

Yes, that Imran Khan. His status as a cricketing giant is beyond question, but his credentials as a political leader seem more doubtful, in particular due to the strong whiff of Islamism that hangs around his party. Well, let's hope that in spite of all fears he brings some much-needed stability and prosperity to his unhappy country, and succeeds in at least partly healing the bad blood between Pakistan and India that dates back to Partition. Even though that would definitely be more miraculous than any of his amazing cricketing feats.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,991
Reply with quote  #450 
Pakistan is a worry, because if it falls in the wrong hands there could be a much bigger danger than to just its neighbours. India on the other hand has a leader I actually quite like in Narendra Modi. However, we are now seeing rising violence in India which demonstrates the dangers associated with identity politics.

As for Erdogan, he's married the worst features of the Ottoman and Kemalist regimes and when you do that you get something resembling fascism.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.