PRESIDENT TRUMP

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

The confirmation hearings and inauguration weren't concurrent.

Correct.

None of the hearings occurred on the day of the inauguration. They didn't continue until 3 days after the inauguration. I.e., not concurrent.

http://www.investopedia.com/news/trumps-cabinet-senate-confirmation-hearings-schedule/

However the events themselves don't need to be concurrent (which they weren't), in order for the coverage of said events to be concurrent (which it is) - as we're still hearing coverage of the inauguration turnout the following week, when they could be directing more of that attention to the hearings (which they're covering but not with the scrutiny they could if they weren't focused on "alternative facts" and things of that nature).

I'm not sure if I give Trump the credit of having duped the media into doing this, or if they've done it on their own - but it's interesting nonetheless.

 

[prlyles]

So why should the media not scrutinize his cabinet picks?

And you are salty. Salty, salty salty.

Salty.

I can see this happening... Russians invades Estonia but before they invade they put out a story that Trump didn't have a date for his prom in high school and this clown gets all worked up about that instead of the invasion. Yes he is that bad. You hint all the time that Trump is playing people or events but you know he's not and so do I

 

[UNC71-00]

Well stop saying ridiculous stuff like the media isn't paying attention to cabinet picks. You sound like Donald Tru....

Ohhhhh.

And you know exactly what I meant.

The media is not giving the attention it would otherwise give to Trumps cabinet picks because it is distracted by this Inauguration stuff.

 

[UNC71-00]

Correct.



However the events themselves don't need to be concurrent (which they weren't), in order for the coverage of said events to be concurrent (which it is) - as we're still hearing coverage of the inauguration turnout the following week, when they could be directing more of that attention to the hearings (which they're covering but not with the scrutiny they could if they weren't focused on "alternative facts" and things of that nature).

I'm not sure if I give Trump the credit of having duped the media into doing this, or if they've done it on their own - but it's interesting nonetheless.

They were absolutely concurrent. The hearings were ongoing but in recess for inauguration ceremony and weekend.

 

[Raising Heel]

And you know exactly what I meant.

The media is not giving the attention it would otherwise give to Trumps cabinet picks because it is distracted by this Inauguration stuff based on what I've seen.

FIFY

 

[UNC71-00]

I can see this happening... Russians invades Estonia but before they invade they put out a story that Trump didn't have a date for his prom in high school and this clown gets all worked up about that instead of the invasion. Yes he is that bad. You hint all the time that Trump is playing people or events but you know he's not and so do I

Too bad you couldn't see the outcome of the election as clearly as you can see this

Or you could be wrong again.

 

[UNC71-00]

FIFY

Ok. I was pretty sure that it was understood that my position was based on my observation. I'm not so presumptuous to believe that I speak for anyone other than myself.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

They were absolutely concurrent. The hearings were ongoing but in recess for inauguration ceremony and weekend.

Fair enough.

My point was that Trumps detractors make themselves look stupid and petty for focusing their bashing of him on the term "Alternative Facts" and the turnout at his inauguration when at the same time he's having cabinet members confirmed/examined. They could be attacking him on what they believe to be holes in his policy (by who he appoints) but instead they attack him on non-policy and semantics. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they put the petty ahead of the policy, since that's what they did the whole campaign - but you'd figure they would have learned to correct that after it didn't work in preventing him from getting elected.

 

[gteeitup]

Bush had his nominees all pass through, and so did Obama . . its unlikely that any of Trump's choices will not be approved. I should think that there are folks on both sides that would agree he has made some good picks.

His CIA visit/speech on Saturday pretty much rules out anything genius about himself.

lol, but how do you feel about devos?

 

[UNC71-00]

Fair enough.

My point was that Trumps detractors make themselves look stupid and petty for focusing their bashing of him on the term "Alternative Facts" and the turnout at his inauguration when at the same time he's having cabinet members confirmed/examined. They could be attacking him on what they believe to be holes in his policy (by who he appoints) but instead they attack him on non-policy and semantics. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they put the petty ahead of the policy, since that's what they did the whole campaign - but you'd figure they would have learned to correct that after it didn't work in preventing him from getting elected.

That's my point as well.

RH will now factually prove why your opinion is wrong.

 

[Raising Heel]

My point was that Trumps detractors make themselves look stupid and petty for focusing their bashing of him on the term "Alternative Facts" and the turnout at his inauguration when at the same time he's having cabinet members confirmed/examined.

There have been 20,100,000 articles written about his cabinet picks.

RH will now factually prove why your opinion is wrong.

Check.

 

[UNC71-00]

There have been 20,100,000 articles written about his cabinet picks.

Right on cue.

 

[prlyles]

Too bad you couldn't see the outcome of the election as clearly as you can see this

Or you could be wrong again.

You know, you could be right and I pray to God that I am wrong.

 

[Raising Heel]

Right on cue.

It's a labor of love.

 

[UNC71-00]

You know, you could be right and I pray to God that I am.

You want to be right about Russia taking over the Baltics?

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

There have been 20,100,000 articles written about his cabinet picks.

Ah yes, I'm sure every single article that would come up from a google search of "cabinet" is going into detail on Trump's cabinet picks and their backgrounds/policy. Never mind that just a couple pages in I see something about the cabinet of the Premier of New South Wales.

Am I the @chick_bleeds_carolina_blue in this scenario that doesn't realize when I'm being trolled, or is this thread serious?

 

[prlyles]

You want to be right about Russia taking over the Baltics?

I did an edit on that about the same time you posted. I meant to say you could be right about me being wrong again and I hope I am.

 

[BillyL]

lol, but how do you feel about devos?

DeVos is his worst pick, and she is terrible . . but, she's gonna go thru.

 

[UNC71-00]

It's a labor of love.

You are hung up on the word "covering". Let's change "covering" to "featuring" or "promoting"

 

[strummingram]

DeVos is his worst pick, and she is terrible . . but, she's gonna go thru.

Worse than Rick Perry?

 

[Raising Heel]

You are hung up on the word "covering". Let's change "covering" to "featuring" or "promoting"

Actually, I'm hung up on the words "scrutiny" and "interest."

 

[Raising Heel]

Ah yes, I'm sure every single article that would come up from a google search of "cabinet" is going into detail on Trump's cabinet picks and their backgrounds/policy. Never mind that just a couple pages in I see something about the cabinet of the Premier of New South Wales.

How many of those articles do you think do actually go into detail about the backgrounds/policies of his picks? And how many do you think are sufficient to represent "scrutiny" or "interest" from the media?

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

How many of those articles do you think do actually go into detail about the backgrounds/policies of his picks? And how many do you think are sufficient to represent "scrutiny" or "interest" from the media?

I'm not sure. But similar google searches of "inauguration viewers" and "alternative facts" yield quite a bit of results as well. Again, my point is that a lot of time is going into those, when it could be better spent elsewhere. Maybe you're of the belief that coverage of the cabinet picks is saturated - and additional coverage is impossible so they might as well direct it towards other things. However the Trump detractors I've heard this week have been focusing on the inauguration and the alternative facts, and I haven't heard anything about his cabinet picks from them - so if the coverage is saturated, it's not doing a great job of hitting it's intended audience.

And before I get accused of being in an echo chamber, I'll make note that I'm in an area with a lot of Trump detractors, and an area that is very well educated (and thus should pay some attention to this stuff) compared to elsewhere in this country.

 

[gteeitup]

Worse than Rick Perry?

yes...she past him at the 1/4 poast

 

[Raising Heel]

I'm not sure. But similar google searches of "inauguration viewers" and "alternative facts" yield quite a bit of results as well. Again, my point is that a lot of time is going into those, when it could be better spent elsewhere. Maybe you're of the belief that coverage of the cabinet picks is saturated - and additional coverage is impossible so they might as well direct it towards other things.

I'm not saying they should direct it somewhere else. I'm simply saying that coverage of the inauguration nonsense hasn't been detrimental to coverage of his cabinet nominations. They're among the top stories on every major news site. So are his executive orders. So are his Supreme Court candidates. I just think the notion that the media can't concurrently (!) provide adequate coverage of multiple topics is silly.

That said, I see the #1 story on CNN is the unsubstantiated claim about illegal voters. I will say that the stories apparently getting top billing are not the ones that matter.

ETA: Maybe that's my beef with what 71 poasted. It's not that the media isn't giving the cabinet nominees enough scrutiny or interest. It's that the readers aren't, relative to the other stupid stuff making headlines.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

ETA: Maybe that's my beef with what 71 poasted. It's not that the media isn't giving the cabinet nominees enough scrutiny or interest. It's that the readers aren't, relative to the other stupid stuff making headlines.

This I can definitely get on board with. Maybe the media is properly covering the important stuff, and it's the audience that is putting undue importance on the click-bait and semantics. I guess that begs the question of who's fault it is that the important topics aren't hitting their mark, the media or the audience. But if the media didn't give the stupid stuff legs, people wouldn't have that to harp on (although maybe they'd ignore the news altogether at that point, who knows).

 

[tarheel0910]

Do you believe that the Department of Education should set some sort of unifying standard(s) for the states? If so, what should be the extent of federal involvement?

If by unifying standards you mean some type of federal standardized tests, then no. Making sure everyone has access to an education through high school is something they should do. This is a pretty complicated issue that probably deserves it's own thread.

 

[UNC71-00]

This I can definitely get on board with. Maybe the media is properly covering the important stuff, and it's the audience that is putting undue importance on the click-bait and semantics. I guess that begs the question of who's fault it is that the important topics aren't hitting their mark, the media or the audience. But if the media didn't give the stupid stuff legs, people wouldn't have that to harp on (although maybe they'd ignore the news altogether at that point, who knows).

There are plenty of click bait stories that about any number of things which don't cast Trump in a negative light which the media could promote.

One significant reason for the promotion of these irrelevant Trump stories is media's overwhelming anti-Trump bias.

Trump also realizes that he can steer the media where he wants them by making controversial statements. Trump uses this realization to his advantage.

This is my opinion.

 

[Raising Heel]

This I can definitely get on board with. Maybe the media is properly covering the important stuff, and it's the audience that is putting undue importance on the click-bait and semantics. I guess that begs the question of who's fault it is that the important topics aren't hitting their mark, the media or the audience. But if the media didn't give the stupid stuff legs, people wouldn't have that to harp on (although maybe they'd ignore the news altogether at that point, who knows).

Okay, now I like you again. If the stupid stuff is what's driving clicks/views, then that's where the media makes their money so that's what they run with. I tend to blame the audience. Would Maury Povich be a household name if not for stupid people? I could go on....

 

[tarheel0910]

Okay, now I like you again. If the stupid stuff is what's driving clicks/views, then that's where the media makes their money so that's what they run with. I tend to blame the audience. Would Maury Povich be a household name if not for stupid people? I could go on....

Um, Maury provides a valuable public service by helping people decide who is legally responsible for supporting a child.

 

[Raising Heel]

There are plenty of click bait stories that about any number of things which don't cast Trump in a negative light which the media could promote.

One significant reason for the promotion of these irrelevant Trump stories is media's overwhelming anti-Trump bias.

Trump also realizes that he can steer the media where he wants them by making controversial statements. Trump uses this realization to his advantage.

This is my opinion.

There is media available for consumers of any political leaning. Almost all media fan the flames in one way or another. The liberal media spent the last 8 years praising Obama and the conservative media will spend the next 4-8 praising Trump. I'm sure behavioral psychologists have an explanation for it, but people don't want objectively presented information. They want conflict. I think it's weird as hell, but I am also an emotionless robot.

While I think you give Trump too much credit sometimes, I will readily agree that he knows how to create a distraction. He's far smarter than most his detractors give him credit for.

 

[Raising Heel]

Um, Maury provides a valuable public service by helping people decide who is legally responsible for supporting a child.

Dammit.

 

[BillyL]

Worse than Rick Perry?

LOL . . geez, I dunno now.

His 'fun on the sofa' comment was a freaking side splitter . .

 

[UNC71-00]

Okay, now I like you again. If the stupid stuff is what's driving clicks/views, then that's where the media makes their money so that's what they run with. I tend to blame the audience. Would Maury Povich be a household name if not for stupid people? I could go on....

You also are missing the point that some portion of the people who are clicking these stories are doing so because they are following a sort of boxing match. (I said "sort of" boxing match because if I had called it boxing match, you would have posted links on how boxing is a sport where people hit each other whereas Trump and Wolf are not actually making physical contact with each other)

A great deal of the population hates the media and distrusts it more than Congress. Some portion of these people enjoy watching Trump antagonize and fight with reporters. Some of these people click these stories to read and laugh at the person who wrote it and the media outlet which promotes the story.

Trump understand he is much, much more popular and credible than the media (as shown in polls, so I will call that a fact and he has made them his bitch ( that's my opinion).

 

[UNC71-00]

There is media available for consumers of any political leaning. Almost all media fan the flames in one way or another. The liberal media spent the last 8 years praising Obama and the conservative media will spend the next 4-8 praising Trump. I'm sure behavioral psychologists have an explanation for it, but people don't want objectively presented information. They want conflict. I think it's weird as hell, but I am also an emotionless robot.

While I think you give Trump too much credit sometimes, I will readily agree that he knows how to create a distraction. He's far smarter than most his detractors give him credit for.

Liberal media outnumbers conservative media 9-1 when speaking about generally accepted mainstream outlets (note I said generally accepted). This is based on how the media has polled on how they vote.

So to imply that conservative media supporting Trump is as noticeable as liberal media supporting Obama is a false equivalency. (That's a fancy term for bullshit that I saw someone use earlier)

You may think i give Trump too much credit. I think that this has been a profitable position for me and I plan to continue riding the horse that got me here.

 

[gteeitup]

LOL . . geez, I dunno now.

His 'fun on the sofa' comment was a freaking side splitter . .

i'd rather rick explain proficiency vs growth and devos read my meter.

 

[Grayhead]

I haven't read this whole thread so forgive me if this wasn't covered,


I think Trump helps keep the media at bay same as Obama did the pub's with his birth certificate. That and he loves to torment the media. He and Obama are products of how divided the country truly is. The media, pub's, and Dems best find a way to get along better or the longevity of this country will be a short one.

 

[Raising Heel]

Trump understand he is much, much more popular and credible than the media (as shown in polls, so I will call that a fact

Are these the same polls that predicted a comfortable Hillary win? I'd like to see these.

 

[Raising Heel]

So to imply that conservative media supporting Trump is as noticeable as liberal media supporting Obama is a false equivalency. (That's a fancy term for bullshit that I saw someone use earlier)

That's not false equivalency.

Why are you so mean? Here's how I feel when you say mean things to me (I'm Melania, you're Trump of course):

 

[UNC71-00]

Are these the same polls that predicted a comfortable Hillary win? I'd like to see these.

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan24

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx