Donald Trump

[AngryOfTuebrook]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/11/donald-trump-campaign-violence-condoned-rally-incidents-reporter-assault

 

When will the first pro-Donald Trump murder happen?

 

The incidents are piling up. A Black Lives Matters protester was sucker-punched by a white bystander at a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. A young black woman was surrounded and shoved aggressively by a number of individuals at a rally in Louisville, Kentucky. A black protester was tackled, then punched and kicked by a group of men as he curled up on the ground in Birmingham, Alabama. Immigration activists were shoved and stripped of their signs by a crowd in Richmond, Virginia. A Latino protester wasknocked down and kicked by a Trump supporter in Miami.

 

At a press conference on Friday morning Trump even seemed to encourage violence at his rallies. “We’ve had some violent people as protesters,” he said. “These are people that punch. These are violent people.” (No such videos have been found.) This adds to evidence piling up that the Trump campaign’s culture of violence extends all the way to the top.

 

Another incident happened Thursday, when Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbed the arm of Breitbart news reporter Michelle Fields at an event in Jupiter, Florida, jerking her so hard he bruised her body and made her cry, according to a first-person account by the Washington Post’s Ben Terris. That Breitbart is a Trump-friendly publication was likely lost on Lewandowski in his fervor to stave off questions from the scrum. That Terris in his story vividly describes the finger-shaped bruises he saw forming on Fields’ forearm, and that she tweeted out a photo of her injury, hasn’t stopped the Trump campaign from denying the incident ever occurred. The story is the most important one yet, because it distills Trump’s culture of violence and subsequent denial.

[TheHowieLama]

Lewandowski - erm....jus sayin

[Strontium]

But of course Trump and his supporters, not unlike many folk here, characterise the media as stormtroopers for the political class, which would make them legitimate targets.

 

You guys wanted politics without politicians. Well, here it is. In future I would suggest you be careful what you wish for.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I have never characterised the media as "stormtroopers for the political class".  I characterise most of the media as part and parcel of the right-wing Establishment, pushing an anti-democratic, neoliberal economic agenda and keeping people distracted and divided with lies, racism and fear.

 

As for "politics without politicians"  - again, no.  I've always wanted politics with better politicians: politicians with principles and integrity, rather than slimy, conniving deal-makers and puerile point-scorers.

 

Trump is a product of the type of media and politicians that have dominated in recent years.  Sanders is a reaction against it.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

He's now claiming that one of the people who has protested/challenged him in his rallies was released and then had background checks done against him and it was discovered that he "was or could be ISIS related" due to stuff they found on his computer etc.

 

Haha. He's literally just saying this now on Sky News at his Kansas City rally. Even before this, I had suspicions that these protests and stage rushers were clear plants. They reek of it now.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

He's now gone on to claim that people like this ISIS bloke who rushed the podium hate America and that he's reaching out to the Evangelical voters as people like this want to stop them from being able to say "Happy Christmas" to each other.

 

I'm watching this open mouthed.

 

He's an extremely dangerous man.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

But of course Trump and his supporters, not unlike many folk here, characterise the media as stormtroopers for the political class, which would make them legitimate targets.

 

You guys wanted politics without politicians. Well, here it is. In future I would suggest you be careful what you wish for.

What on Earth...

[Anubis]

But of course Trump and his supporters, not unlike many folk here, characterise the media as stormtroopers for the political class, which would make them legitimate targets.

 

You guys wanted politics without politicians. Well, here it is. In future I would suggest you be careful what you wish for.

 

Have you been on the beak?

[Anubis]

There was a picture of an older female Trump supporter giving the nazi salute at the cancelled Chicago rally. His son tried to claim it was a woman who works for the Sanders team, only to have to withdraw his Twitter allegations when it was revealed the lady he accused no longer had the same hairstyle as the woman in the picture, but that she was elsewhere being interviewed on radio when it happened. His campaign is a litany of excuses without accountability.

[alles ist gut]

[Spy Bee]

[VladimirIlyich]

Donald Drumpf the Nazi.

[SasaS]

I have never characterised the media as "stormtroopers for the political class".  I characterise most of the media as part and parcel of the right-wing Establishment, pushing an anti-democratic, neoliberal economic agenda and keeping people distracted and divided with lies, racism and fear.

 

As for "politics without politicians"  - again, no.  I've always wanted politics with better politicians: politicians with principles and integrity, rather than slimy, conniving deal-makers and puerile point-scorers.

 

Trump is a product of the type of media and politicians that have dominated in recent years.  Sanders is a reaction against it.

 

I think Trump is more of a reaction against it than Sanders, or at least equally a reaction to it. .

 

Out of curiosity what media do you have in mind, I find very little "lies, racism and fear" in the UK mainstream media I use.

[Spy Bee]

Out of curiosity what media do you have in mind, I find very little "lies, racism and fear" in the UK mainstream media I use.

Seriously? You don't find in the BBC? You don't find it in the Daily Mail? You don't find it in the red tops?

[Jairzinho]

Seriously? You don't find in the BBC? You don't find it in the Daily Mail? You don't find it in the red tops?

 

Presumably he isn't reading the Mail so he's probably only getting the lies rather than the fear and racism.

[SasaS]

Well, yes, I read the Daily Mail only for the celebrity gossip stories on the web, I do not find much racism and hatred there. I mostly read BBC News, Guardian, Independent on the web, plus occasionally The Economist and FT and what else comes on my social media feed or is shared by people I follow. From descriptions of British media on here, the impression I get is that must publications are variations of Völkischer Beobachter, so I clearly must be missing out on some good stormtrooper stories and angles.

[Section_31]

The media thing is an interesting because in some cases it's subtle and it's not just restricted to the news media.

 

For instance, there was a story buried quite far down last week about the queen's dogs being served steak by a butler on silver platters.

 

But on any given day you can find at least three TV shows about people on benefits.

 

It's the terminology used too. Benefits = handouts, Muslim rebels = islamist or islamofascist arf!) Insurgents. Fusilier Lee rigby/drummer Lee rigby.

 

Language is subtle and can be tailored to suit the feel and vibe you're trying to create.

 

I don't think it's an overarching conspiracy as such, more that the media is made up by and large of the same people that make up all echelons of politics.

[Spy Bee]

I'm always pointing people to this site, but I think it's deconstruction of media bias is unparalleled www.medialens.org

 

Every source you mentioned, including the Guardian is massively subjective in their reporting.

[SasaS]

"From the moment Jeremy Corbyn stood as prospective Labour leader, the Guardian has waged a relentless campaign to destroy this rare shoot of progressive hope. The paper has backed away from the truth about state and corporate power fuelling yet more catastrophic climate change. It has failed to fully and consistently expose the corporate basis to the climate denial campaign and the corporate capture of the 'mainstream' media in facilitating this. These are salient horrors, but the list could go on..."
 

I don't think it gets more subjective than this, pot calling the kettle black and all that... mainstream media at least makes an effort when it comes to discourse to appear unbiased.

Anyway, I don't necessarily think the media I use are not subjective, I am mostly aware of their position and some are even more than happy to disclose it, like The Economist for example. I am more or less aware how media works commercially around the world.

 

I doubt most British quality mainstream media are deliberately spreading lies, racism and fear. I think BBC for example is pretty scrupulous with the facts and overall, I believe UK mainstream media is still the best there is, you will be very sorry when it's gone and replaced by a sea of content marketing,  jungle of politically biased niche media and insanity of manipulated baying social media mobs.

[Jairzinho]

"From the moment Jeremy Corbyn stood as prospective Labour leader, the Guardian has waged a relentless campaign to destroy this rare shoot of progressive hope. The paper has backed away from the truth about state and corporate power fuelling yet more catastrophic climate change. It has failed to fully and consistently expose the corporate basis to the climate denial campaign and the corporate capture of the 'mainstream' media in facilitating this. These are salient horrors, but the list could go on..."

 

I don't think it gets more subjective than this, pot calling the kettle black and all that... mainstream media at least makes an effort when it comes to discourse to appear unbiased.

 

Anyway, I don't necessarily think the media I use are not subjective, I am mostly aware of their position and some are even more than happy to disclose it, like The Economist for example. I am more or less aware how media works commercially around the world.

 

I doubt most British quality mainstream media are deliberately spreading lies, racism and fear. I think BBC for example is pretty scrupulous with the facts and overall, I believe UK mainstream media is still the best there is, you will be very sorry when it's gone and replaced by a sea of content marketing,  jungle of politically biased niche media and insanity of manipulated baying social media mobs.

 

Pretending to be unbiased is a positive?

 

It's actually why I despise The Guardian and the BBC more than the Daily Mail. The Guardian pretends to be on the left, and the BBC pretends to be unbiased. At least The Mail is reasonably unapologetic about being a right wing newspaper. 

 

There was an absolutely relentless anti-Corbyn campaign from The Guardian. More so than any other paper. It's why every single comments section was filled with people saying they'd had enough of the newspaper, how they were cancelling their subscriptions. It's perfectly understandable as to why The Guardian was so relentless in their attacks. Their cosy position on the left of the acceptable part of the political spectrum of the mainstream media was under threat. If what Corbyn was saying became acceptable then why the fuck would anyone bother with The Guardian. Sadly, for them, they didn't correctly predict the reaction of their readership. Hence the cringeworthy apologies they were forced to issue.

[Rico1304]

I've just watched a video on the Twitter with Cruz's pastor calling for the death of gays right before introducing him. Fucking unreal.

 

https://twitter.com/justin_kanew/status/709044438467612672

[SasaS]

Pretending to be unbiased is a positive?

 

It's actually why I despise The Guardian and the BBC more than the Daily Mail. The Guardian pretends to be on the left, and the BBC pretends to be unbiased. At least The Mail is reasonably unapologetic about being a right wing newspaper. 

 

If your mission is to show media bias in your analysis, surely step one should be attempting not to sound biased yourself?

 

Well, the Guardian is broadly on the left in a champagne socialist sort of way where they expect the audience they target to be, and BBC is attempting not to be biased, within well known boundaries.  

[Jairzinho]

If your mission is to show media bias in your analysis, surely step one should be attempting not to sound biased yourself?

 

Well, the Guardian is broadly on the left in a champagne socialist sort of way where they expect the audience they target to be, and BBC is attempting not to be biased, within well known boundaries.  

 

The Guardian is on the left when it comes to social policies - Trees, bees, gays, etc. But it's firmly neo liberal economically. Firmly pro establishment.

 

The BBC is currently acting like a battered house wife. Fiercely defending a government that would happily see the entire organisation chucked in the sea. Marr, Dimbleby, Coburn, Kuenssberg, Neil, etc all fucking embarrassingly biased fronting up their political output.

[Section_31]

It's always been a bit of a myth that the guardian is left wing, it's not, it's liberal, there's a difference.

[Jairzinho]

It's always been a bit of a myth that the guardian is left wing, it's not, it's liberal, there's a difference.

 

Well, Liberalism is essentially left wing social policies and right wing economic policies. Like the Lib Dems. "We want to do this, this and this, but we don't actually want to make any significant systemic changes that would allow it to happen". 

 

But The Guardian is quite happy with being seen as a left wing paper. When Sky News or the BBC wants a "left wing" view they get Polly Toynbee or Jonathan Freedland on, and everyone (including them) has a good old laugh about what loony lefties they are. It's a charade that suits the entire media.