Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Todd]

That's stretching the meaning of truth.

Yes, but the press did it.  More than normal.  That's at least as important as Trump's lies.

An unfettered Trump administration is not now, and never was, a possibility.  That anyone would think that is a byproduct of what you call "stretching the truth" and what can also be called "post-truth politics".

[Mahlerian]

Yes, but the press did it.  More than normal.  That's at least as important as Trump's lies.

The press did what, exactly?  Tell people what Trump was saying?  Express horror at how racist, sexist, mean-spirited, and petty his remarks were?  Point out his frequent lies as lies?

If they reacted more strongly than normal, most of the blame likely lies with Trump defying all normal rules of decency in his campaign.

An unfettered Trump administration is not now, and never was, a possibility.  That anyone would think that is a byproduct of what you call "stretching the truth" and what can also be called "post-truth politics".

I didn't call anything "stretching the truth."  I said that you personally were stretching the meaning of the word truth so as to make expressions of opinion into matters of fact.

If Trump surrounds himself with yes-men and those who are ready and willing to carry out his expressed policy positions, then his administration will be able to do quite a bit even without the sanction of the legislative or judicial branches.

[amw]

An unfettered Trump administration is not now, and never was, a possibility. 

To be fair, that is the conventional wisdom: Trump will not be able to fulfill his campaign promises, the Republicans will end up infighting and disunited, Trump will "pivot" to being a more normal president, American government will function as it always has etc.

Conventional wisdom seems to go out of the window where Trump is concerned. Conventional wisdom had it he would lose the election after all, or that he would lose support after doing [insert thing here]....

[Todd]

The press did what, exactly?

They ran exaggerated op-eds continuously (some outlets still do), used hyperbolic language constantly (some outlets still do), and some members of the press shed any hints of objectivity by writing their opinions.  If your question is meant seriously, then you are seeing only what you want to see.  Trust in the press itself dropped to 32% in Gallup polls, though obviously polls were shown to be inaccurate this cycle.  Press coverage and trust in the press are related.  The reaction of the press is itself questionable. 

Much of the press is biased.  Some outlets are biased to the right (WSJ, Fox, Economist, National Review, others), more are biased to the left (where to start?).  The outlets tended to skew coverage in favor of their institutional biases.  The more left-leaning the outlet, the more hyperbolic the coverage on Trump.  That's not stretching the truth at all.

If Trump surrounds himself with yes-men and those who are ready and willing to carry out his expressed policy positions, then his administration will be able to do quite a bit even without the sanction of the legislative or judicial branches.

True, but that's not what the word "unfettered" means.  You are engaging in the exact same type of hyperbole some in the press, and democrats running races and campaigns engaged in.  That is, you are engaging in your own post-truth politics.

[Todd]

Conventional wisdom seems to go out of the window where Trump is concerned.

True, but that's an election.  Now Trump must deal with existing institutions with actual, practical power.  He will have to contend with federal courts that rule against him.  He will have to deal with cities and states that defy his policies.  He will have to deal with a Congress that will go along with some legislation and not other legislation.  He will have to deal with federal bureaucracies that have decades of practice already established and that will not change.  (He will also have to deal with unmodernized agencies and antiquated systems and understaffed agencies due to funding cuts.)  He will have to deal with other countries.  The President's power is overstated, though the Presidency is still very powerful.  This is where principled conservatives (a rare breed, to be sure) have it right: the power of the executive branch is excessive and needs to be reduced, and Congress needs to reassert itself.  I doubt that happens between now and November 2018.  Governing is not the same as campaigning.

[Mahlerian]

They ran exaggerated op-eds continuously (some outlets still do), used hyperbolic language constantly (some outlets still do), and some members of the press shed any hints of objectivity by writing their opinions.  If your question is meant seriously, then you are seeing only what you want to see.  Trust in the press itself dropped to 32% in Gallup polls, though obviously polls were shown to be inaccurate this cycle.  Press coverage and trust in the press are related.  The reaction of the press is itself questionable. 

Much of the press is biased.  Some outlets are biased to the right (WSJ, Fox, Economist, National Review, others), more are biased to the left (where to start?).  The outlets tended to skew coverage in favor of their institutional biases.  The more left-leaning the outlet, the more hyperbolic the coverage on Trump.  That's not stretching the truth at all.

True, but that's not what the word "unfettered" means.  You are engaging in the exact same type of hyperbole some in the press, and democrats running races and campaigns engaged in.  That is, you are engaging in your own post-truth politics.

Never mind.  You seem not to have any understanding of the term "truth" to begin with.  You are not distinguishing statements of opinion from statements of fact.

The fact that the majority of people think that the press lacks credibility does not in and of itself imply that the press therefore lacks credibility.  People can be and often are wrong.

[Todd]

Never mind.  You seem not to have any understanding of the term "truth" to begin with.  You are not distinguishing statements of opinion from statements of fact.

The fact that the majority of people think that the press lacks credibility does not in and of itself imply that the press therefore lacks credibility.  People can be and often are wrong.

Ah, yes, I see: what you write is truth, what others write is not; words are not hyperbolic if they conform to your opinion; etc.  If you cannot see that what much of the more left-leaning press engaged was biased and hyperbolic, then your understanding of "truth" is stunted.

[Mahlerian]

Ah, yes, I see: what you write is truth, what others write is not; words are not hyperbolic if they conform to your opinion; etc.  If you cannot see that what much of the more left-leaning press engaged was biased and hyperbolic, then your understanding of "truth" is stunted.

This is so tangential to what I wrote as to make me wonder whether or not you read it at all.

[kishnevi]

Never mind.  You seem not to have any understanding of the term "truth" to begin with.  You are not distinguishing statements of opinion from statements of fact.

The fact that the majority of people think that the press lacks credibility does not in and of itself imply that the press therefore lacks credibility.  People can be and often are wrong.

If people do not believe something is credible, than by definition it is not credible.

The press may be reporting accurately.  But that does not imply they are credible.

[Todd]

This is so tangential to what I wrote as to make me wonder whether or not you read it at all.

Incorrect.  I read it.  Assuming you are referring to two of your posts back, you claimed I have no understanding of truth, I don't distinguish between facts and opinion, and polls about the press don't, in your view, mean that the press lacks credibility.  I also understood your prior posts.

Surely, though, you can understand that the inclusion of a poll is not to impugn the entire press (eg, the Gray Lady was generally more serious and diligent in its duties than others), but rather to point out that there are perceived shortcomings in much of the press, and that is borne out by the biased nature of much of the press.  You are clearly fine with press biases that match your opinions.  Your post that implicitly supports members of the press expressing "horror" (more hyperbole) at what Trump said is a dead giveaway to your fundamentally biased outlook.  I would not be surprised if you are not so fine with press outlets that do not share your biases.  Perhaps you like the WSJ, perhaps not.  Were I to wager based on what I've seen you write, I know how I'd wager. 

The press generally is not objective, its authors and presenters have biases, and the US press was, and remains in some outlets, in biased election reporting mode.  The BBC news on PBS tended to do a better job of reporting facts without color than most US outlets I gather(ed) news from, which was around a couple dozen.  I'd like to see more evenhanded press coverage like the BBC was able to produce from US sources.  In the meantime, I rely on more biased sources.  I recognize those biases.  Indeed, that's why I use specific outlets - and I tend to spend more time on/with/at, to American sensibilities, left-leaning outlets.  Hell, I read the World Socialist Web Site from time to time, but not because it is objective. 

[Mahlerian]

If people do not believe something is credible, than by definition it is not credible.

The press may be reporting accurately.  But that does not imply they are credible.

Dictionary.com gives "the quality of being believable or worthy of trust" as a definition, but also "the quality of being believed or trusted," so I'll grant that my usage was ambiguous.  I meant trustworthy, of course.

[SimonNZ]

Ah, yes, I see: what you write is truth, what others write is not; words are not hyperbolic if they conform to your opinion; etc.  If you cannot see that what much of the more left-leaning press engaged was biased and hyperbolic, then your understanding of "truth" is stunted.

Perhaps you'd be better dealing in specific examples, rather than sweeping generalizations. Because most of what I saw the "left leaning" press bewailing was stuff he really had done, said, contradicted himself about, hid, lied about or showed ignorance about. No "hyperbole" for much of this was required - it was as jaw-droppingly bad as they said.

[Mahlerian]

Perhaps you'd be better dealing in specific examples, rather than sweeping generalizations. Because most of what I saw the "left leaning" press bewailing was stuff he really had done, said, contradicted himself about, hid, lied about or showed ignorance about. No "hyperbole" for much of this was required - it was as jaw-droppingly bad as they said.

HYPERBOLE!#  YOU SAID SOMETHING!  You're obviously too biased, and clearly to you nothing is truth that doesn't concur with your opinions.*  Do you actually believe that the press is always honest?^  Well, let me tell you something: in the 19th century, they said that ETHER existed.  ETHER!@

# Exclamation without argumentative weight or content
* Pre-emptive rationalization
^ Leading question with straw man implications
@ Irrelevant example

[Todd]

Perhaps you'd be better dealing in specific examples, rather than sweeping generalizations.

I don't have the free time for that.  It was pervasive. 

When I was gone here, I spent time posting on some of those sites.  Bigger crowd, more opinions, more brawling.  Good times.  The more vigorous posters generally didn't pretend they were unbiased, fortunately.

HYPERBOLE!  YOU SAID SOMETHING!  You're obviously too biased, and clearly to you nothing is truth that doesn't concur with your opinions.

"Jaw-droppingly" is indeed a hyperbolic phrase.  However, he's not a member of the press, or at least is not functioning as one here.  I mean, how many people actually had there jaws drop during the campaign?  It's a colorful figure of speech, but surely one should have higher expectations from the press.  Then again, maybe some people don't have higher expectations.

[Mahlerian]

"Jaw-droppingly" is indeed a hyperbolic phrase.  However, he's not a member of the press, or at least is not functioning as one here.  I mean, how many people actually had there jaws drop during the campaign?  It's a colorful figure of speech, but surely one should have higher expectations from the press.  Then again, maybe some people don't have higher expectations.

Just as you're not distinguishing between matters of fact and matters of opinion, you're failing to distinguish between hyperbole and figures of speech.  I know personally I stood stunned more than once at the brain-dead and offensive pronouncements coming out of Trump's mouth over the course of this campaign.

But SimonNZ's call stands.  Can you come up with an example of a member of the mainstream press writing something biased (however you might define that) outside of an Op-ed (they're marked off as opinion; why should it matter that they express one)?

[Todd]

I know personally I stood stunned more than once...

Stunned, huh?  OK.  That explains a few things.

(Oh, and from Dictionary.com, apparently one of your trusted sources:

Hyperbole:

2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as "to wait an eternity.". )

But SimonNZ's call stands.

Check The Guardian about every 30 minutes for the latest headlines.  Shouldn't take long.  That's one of the funner outlets.  Now, there is every chance that you might not find anything biased because of your own biases. 

[SimonNZ]

I don't have the free time for that. 

You clearly do have time. And you're the one trying to persuade us to your position, so asking for specifics isn't unreasonable.

fwiw: I'd be accusing the "left-wing media", if I must, of joining in playing the False Equivalence game and for feeding the energy creature.

[Todd]

And you're the one trying to persuade us to your position

Or not.  This came up on this forum before: Do people actually come here to be persuaded on political matters? 

[SimonNZ]

Or not.  This came up on this forum before: Do people actually come here to be persuaded on political matters? 

I'd like to understand various points of view, and to see the logical development of them, even if I disagree.

I don't want to believe that many are just emotional reactions born of fear, misinformation, knee-jerk reactions and insular tribalism...with intellectual rationalizations after the fact.

[Todd]

I'd like to understand various points of view, and to see the logical development of them, even if I disagree.

Fair enough, but that's not the same as persuasion.  In any event, try the Guardian from time to time to see if they have biased or hyperbolic headlines or sub-headers.  Then try Fox or any other right-wing outlet of your choice and see if you can spot bias or hyperbole there.  It's generally pretty easy to spot.  Headlines are meant to grab attention, and sub-headers to reel in the reader, and it is not uncommon for editors to tailor them to the prevailing readership.