@blatham,
People are going to feel the reality of what Mr. Trump and his team do when it happens. He'll take care of his own media. No need to offer additional coverage. He will get the spotlight without it being handed to him.
In line with those thoughts, here's Greg Sargent this morning:
Quote:The events we’ve seen in the run-up to the inauguration of Donald Trump have only confirmed that he represents a threat to our democracy and governing norms in multiple unprecedented ways. But this isn’t just a story about Donald Trump. It’s also a story about congressional Republicans.
Trump is doing all he can to discredit the apparent CIA conclusion that Russia tried to interfere in our election, which might make a true accounting of this apparently unprecedented assault on our democracy harder. He continues to suggest he will do little to address all the potential conflicts of interests — and possibility of corruption — that are developing around his global business interests on a mind-boggling scale. He continues to claim — after the election — that millions voted illegally, to sow confusion and doubt about the real meaning of the outcome and the integrity of our political process.
Yet there are steps congressional Republicans could take to mitigate the damage of those things, but aren’t:
[urlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/12/14/trump-is-threatening-to-wreck-our-democracy-blame-the-republicans-who-are-looking-the-other-way/?utm_term=.e5a25eb8fb47]link[/url]
All that is exactly right and it needs to be known. And the dynamics that have brought this about need to be understood so well as we can work that out accurately and honestly because if we don't, if we get cause wrong, then there's little means to correct the course of things.
@ehBeth,
Quote:No need to offer additional coverage. He will get the spotlight without it being handed to him.
Not in agreement with you here. And actually neither is Trump and crowd. They are continuing a policy of reactive rebuttal to any media coverage they deem negative and they are continuing a policy of attempted bullying of press. They do that because they understand the damage to their agenda and their media dominance when the press really digs in and contests them. Aside from anything else one might observe about the role of an independent press, their behavior suggests what media and concerned people must continue doing.
Leaving the messaging to him would be, in my eyes, a very serious error. These guys do not shy from systemic propaganda. And they clearly do not give a **** about being honest.
@blatham,
blatham wrote:All that is exactly right and it needs to be known.
people are going to know soon enough what's going to happen because they'll be living the results
__
that's why I think it's important for the parties to be actively working on their plan for the future - what are they going to be offering in two - four years that is different (hopefully in a good/positive way)
@blatham,
blatham wrote:They do that because they understand the damage to their agenda and their media dominance when the press really digs in and contests them.
what damage? none. He won.
__
Mr. Trump understands how to work around traditional media lines. He won the electoral college and is the president-elect.
Giving him coverage on top of the coverage he gets for himself is what got America to the spot it is in - whether people think that is good or bad.
@George,
Well, there's not a single person I've ever met who bought a camel through Amazon or anywhere else and who could be described as wise.
@ehBeth,
Quote:Giving him coverage on top of the coverage he gets for himself is what got America to the spot it is in - whether people think that is good or bad.
I guess we'll have to disagree on this one.
Perhaps I should add the following. The existing media entities have not handled Trump well. The schemes or patterns on which they tend to operate are not set up to deal with someone like him in his constant lies and in his expertise at manipulating them. These aren't problems that arise only with him but they are made far more critical by him. The most obvious example is the "he said/she said" paradigm where equivalence is the foundational premise. With bad players, that just doesn't work.
Media now, aside from all the problems facing it with the arise of the internet and loss of advertising revenues and the loss of eyeballs peering elsewhere, is trying to fulfill their role as a check on the powerful but is still at something of a loss as to how to do that. One promising aspect I see now is the degree to which they are refusing to use the old forms. Never in my lifetime have I seen the big news entities continuing to focus on the sorts of complaints I focus on. And they are loud and brave in doing so.
I'll end there.
@ehBeth,
People are already feeling the positive reality of Trump's election, it's only going to get better with time.
@Frugal1,
I truly hope that positives for America will come from Mr. Trump's election. I want good things for a country I have enjoyed visiting and where people I love live.
@ehBeth,
We are already experiencing increased excitement & optimism, and on a personal level, my businesses have already experienced people relaxing with their money because they are happy with the new direction this country is going in.
The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades.
It appears that Layman has been banned from the site, perhaps because of his frequent use of the phrase "cheese eaters" to mock and deride many folks who disagreed with hin. I will readily agree this was a fault, not at all unlike many others that are seen very frequently on this thread, and, in some cases, almost with the same frequency. Being called a "cheese eater" is unpleasant, but so is being called evil or part of a dark conspiracy.
I have tried to visualize the emotional damage this may have caused some of the sensitive souls here, intolerant and unaccustomed, as they are, to criticism in any form. It appears Blatham was particularly hurt as evidenced by his frequent pleas, "in god's name" - for all this to cease so he could continue his endless and often venomous posts about the domestic politics of a neighboring country (ours) without interruption.
I found Layman to be a thoughtful and intersting guy, far more knowledgable, and better informed, than most posters here, and with a depth and sophistication that I suspect was mostly undetected. He also represented a point of view and perspective that is otherwise completely absent in this site. He is a Black man, who thinks and speaks for himself, often in ways that confound the many preconceived excpectations of the overwhelmingly politically correct (often wussy) crowd here. He often deliberately used an exaggerated Black patois, perhaps to chide others, or for some other reason I don't fully understand. I found it to be a fault, but a very small one in view of everything else he offered. In any event I will truly miss not having the oportunity to exchange thoughts, ideas and perceptions of events with him any further. He is a very interesting person with an independent perspective on events, and one who introduced me (in his "Taste of the Blues" thread ) to something I found fascinating and very satisfying.
There is an unpleasant heard mentality and intolerance that is fairly pervasive on this site. There are many evidences of it to be seen in the content of its most prolific posters; visible patterns in the thumbing down of posts and, as in the case at hand, responding to "bad" behavior on the site.
The world we inhabit is endlessly complex and fascinating, It is far more complex than the relatively simple.minded theories we all are accustomned to employ in explaining it. I would wish that the discorse here would be more reflective of that fact and more tolerant of its many implications.
I can readily think of persistent epithets and name calling from several present members that were far worse and far more protrracted than anything Layman did.
An unfortunate outcome.
@georgeob1,
Indeed, this is an unfortunate outcome.
Why does A2K give so much credence to whiny cupcakes & snowflakes?
Quote:
It appears that Layman has been banned from the site, perhaps because of his frequent use of the phrase "cheese eaters" to mock and deride many folks who disagreed with him. I will readily agree this was a fault, not at all unlike many others that are seen very frequently on this thread, and, in some cases, almost with the same frequency. Being called a "cheese eater" is unpleasant, but so is being called evil or part of a dark conspiracy.
I have tried to visualize the emotional damage this may have caused some of the sensitive souls here, intolerant and unaccustomed, as they are, to criticism in any form. It appears Blatham was particularly hurt as evidenced by his frequent pleas, "in god's name" - for all this to cease so he could continue his endless and often venomous posts about the domestic politics of a neighboring country (ours) without interruption.
I found Layman to be a thoughtful and interesting guy, far more knowledgeable, and better informed, than most posters here, and with a depth and sophistication that I suspect was mostly undetected. He also represented a point of view and perspective that is otherwise completely absent in this site. He is a Black man, who thinks and speaks for himself, often in ways that confound the many preconceived expectations of the overwhelmingly politically correct (often wussy) crowd here. He often deliberately used an exaggerated Black patois, perhaps to chide others, or for some other reason I don't fully understand. I found it to be a fault, but a very small one in view of everything else he offered. In any event I will truly miss not having the opportunity to exchange thoughts, ideas and perceptions of events with him any further. He is a very interesting person with an independent perspective on events, and one who introduced me (in his "Taste of the Blues" thread ) to something I found fascinating and very satisfying.
There is an unpleasant heard mentality and intolerance that is fairly pervasive on this site. There are many evidences of it to be seen in the content of its most prolific posters; visible patterns in the thumbing down of posts and, as in the case at hand, responding to "bad" behavior on the site. I can readily think of persistent epithets and name calling from several present members that were far worse and far more protracted than anything Layman did.
@georgeob1,
I will miss him too.
Are we sure he was banned?
I can't imagine he would be banned for using "cheese-eater".
(I'm a Vermont sharp cheddar guy myself.)
In my first encounters with layman his posts seemed like disruption for the sake of disruption. If he showed a different side he brought it forth after I ignored him.
I've been bringing more news articles than I usually do because any discussions of late have gone nowhere. Layman did engage with actual debate along with constant name calling. It is like he came here with a certain mindset and just proceeded to blast away with insults and petty names which is against the rules from what I understand.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote: . . . .
I can readily think of persistent epithets and name calling from several present members that were far worse and far more protrracted than anything Layman did. . . .
Do you include yourself in the criticism you offered in your own protracted post? Frankly, I snipped away all the parts of your post that were pulling me down into the abyss of your condescension. A pithy "cheese eater" comment is most delightful in comparison. Anyway, let's get back to the discussion.
