griff17matt said:
No chance I'll respond to that whole dissertation, but I did have a noticeable eye roll to this part:
"Again, to me, quantity and veracity matter. It's a consequential difference that Trump tweeted and was quoted 500+ times about the election being stolen whereas Hillary's remarks have expressed disappointment in the impact of Russian interference or potential collusion in a small handful of interviews. She's not out there in public beating the "FRAUD/RIGGED/STOLEN" drum hundreds of times and stirring up her followers that the election was stolen from her and the system is rigged. Quantity and intensity of communication matters."
I'll give you his incessant tweeting, but are we really going to use the media's obsession with twisting every word he says against him? And, in practically the same breath, excuse Hillary for the media covering for her? I'm not sure you can form an argument around coverage disparities from a large percentage of traditional media that negatively construe one side and positively construe the other. Did they do or say the same things? If yes, then they are guilty of the same sin, regardless of how many times it was repeated through news outlets.
You also keep saying how there was Russian "interference or collusion" which would I suppose kind of echo Hillary's Trump is Putin's puppet trope. If that's the case then I suppose Biden is Xi's puppet since Dems seem so hell bent on tickling their tonsils on China's dick? So we traded one master for another? Congrats on the move from authoritarian right to totalitarian left I guess.
Also, could you PLEASE make me stop defending Trump's dumb ass? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone or something.
LOL, nor would I expect you to respond to that diatribe.
Most MSM media is biased and too opinion-based. Mostly liberal bias, although Fox and then OAN, Newsmax, etc. sensed a business opportunity and moved into a vacuum to provide partisan news for the right.
The MSM was seriously butthurt from Trump being elected. That was partly political; partly Trump saying outrageous **** almost every time he opened his mouth and the media seeing it as their role to call out obvious lies; and partly him being combative/defensive/contentious with the media well before he became President, except in circumstance when someone was writing a glowing fluff profile of him.
We can't act like him seeming like a contentious, narcissistic, entitled blowhard started when he became a "Republican" or became President, or that it's unfair to judge him that, or that the MSM hating on him is solely the media's response to him being "conservative," which he's not, even. He's was incredibly unlikeable and untrustworthy before he became a "Republican" or became President. I enjoyed The Art of the Deal when I read it 20 years ago but the narcissism and bluster and convenient relationship with the truth were apparent decades ago.
Then Day 1, his team shows up and starts clearly just making stuff up about his inauguration attendance, and the defending their obvious lies by saying they were providing "alternative facts." If you're a reporter, that's chum in the water. It was also super weird and alarming to normal Americans, to see the US President look at the blue sky and then turn to the American people and say "the sky is yellow." This approach went on for four years, about matters big and small, and he and the media only got more combative and contentious as he went along. That's not a political observation, that's just who Trump is whether it's about real estate or politics. It's his personality. He crafts his own reality when actual reality doesn't suit him.
The media isn't a victim here; they made their partisan bed and they have to lie in it to some extent, but I can't get behind acting like their judgments of Trump, or combativeness with this, is totally a political construct.
Regarding Russian interference, yeah there was interference and Trump kept denying it when it had obviously taken place and was weirdly complimentary of Putin. I don't think it's a crazy response to wonder why he was in obvious denial, with some combination of himself, the media, and the American people.
Is there a similar analogy where China or Xi engaged with Biden in ways that make it seem like Biden was helped by China/Xi, and then denied it? That's a direct analogy.
Biden being soft on China in absence of anything seemingly untoward may make for bad foreign policy but in and of itself isn't directly comparable to Russia clearly helping Trump electorally and Trump denying it.
Going back to this thread topic, I understand Trump's appeal to many on the right. His combativeness with the media and him not conceding an inch or backing down from fights with the left are hugely appealing. I just wonder how much his stance in the party hurts it electorally. Seems impossible to have a relatively unified party with him playing such an active role.