What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Razgovory]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Lkr8iBbA8

The number of House Democrats favoring impeachment has increased by 24.  This source attributes it to the Mueller hearing.

What was the video you linked us to?

[Admiral Yi]

What was the video you linked us to?

That was pretty much it.

[katmai]

What was the video you linked us to?

That was pretty much it.

Whomever posted it pulled it, so just says video unavailable

[Admiral Yi]

No shit Sherlock.  I checked the link before I responded.

[The Minsky Moment]

Then I remember vaguely that nutcase who shot all those Republican lawmakers at a baseball field.

Another crazy white guy with a gun.  I agree it's not purely a left-right distinction.  The problem is that white people can't be trusted with firearms.

[dps]

Then I remember vaguely that nutcase who shot all those Republican lawmakers at a baseball field.

Another crazy white guy with a gun.  I agree it's not purely a left-right distinction.  The problem is that white people can't be trusted with firearms.

They don't need firearms--a few tons of fertilizer will kill you just as dead.

[mongers]

925 days of the Trump 'administration' so far.

Only 536 days to go. :fingers X'd:

[Eddie Teach]

536 days, you may be dead tomorrow. 

[Legbiter]

925 days of the Trump 'administration' so far.

Only 536 days to go. :fingers X'd:

Not seeing a Trump-killer in the current crop of Dem candidates if nothing else changes (the economy holds, etc).

Biden comes across like he's aged significantly and is missing a step. Next to Trump on a stage he's a boring version of Orange Man Bad.

Kamala Harris would probably be the most effective of the bunch but because of how the primaries are set up will get crushed by Biden in the first 4 primaries and then he sweeps Super Tuesday.

Of course nothing will stay the same so expect a bumpy ride.

[jimmy olsen]

Next to Trump on a stage he's a boring version of Orange Man Bad.

You're so terminally online it's ridiculous.   

[Eddie Teach]

You'll have to explain what "terminally online" means for us old-timers.

[DGuller]

You'll have to explain what "terminally online" means for us old-timers.

That's okay, no need to explain.

[Savonarola]

From Politico:

Why Liberals Just Turned on the New York Times
Even when it writes good headlines about Trump, the paper of record doesn't want to be the paper of resistance.

By JACK SHAFER August 06, 2019

The Twitter multitudes came for the New York Times Monday night, swinging caltrops and battle axes in protest over the Page One banner headline, "Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism," which the paper printed in its Tuesday first edition.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that the headline serves "as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by—and often relies upon—the cowardice of mainstream institutions." "Unbelievable," echoed Beto O'Rourke. The Nation correspondent Joan Walsh publicly tweeted the cancelation of her Times subscription. "Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT," tweeted Cory Booker. Scores of Twitter users, including Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch, called for Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet to resign and at last count, the hashtag #CancelNYT had appeared in 16,000 tweets.

As headlines go, "Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism" wasn't ideal, something the Times admitted by changing the headline to "Assailing Hate, But Not Guns" for the remainder of the print run. The paper issued an official statement calling the original "flawed" and Baquet put on the hair shirt. But the original Times headline—and please refrain from mounting a "fire Jack Shafer" movement until you finish this piece—was fairly accurate. Read or listen to Trump's speech. He literally condemned racism and called for unity!

While it's fair to ask whether Trump was sincere in damning bigotry and white supremacy, there's only so much work you can expect a headline to do in such a small space. That's why newspapers publish articles below headlines. If you detach your eyes from your Twitter account long enough to read the Page One stories by Michael Crowley, Maggie Haberman, and Alexander Burns in the Times, you'll find sharp and critical reporting on the Trump speech.

The fury uncaged by the five-word Times headline had less to do with the language used and more to do with the political validation that liberals and lefties have come to demand from the news media they consume. It's not good enough for some liberals that the Times has kept a tight vigil on Trump since he announced his candidacy four years ago, exposing him as a tax cheat, tracking his lies, aggressively covering the Mueller investigation and the Stormy Daniels case, cataloging everybody he's insulted on Twitter, fending off his "enemy of the people" charges, recording his abuse of emergency powers, and documenting his contempt for the rule of law. They want every column-inch of copy in the Times to reinforce and amplify their resistance values, right down to the headlines. Anything perceived as even a minor deviation from that "mission," they seem to think, requires the mass cancelation of subscriptions and calls for the executive editor's resignation.

The defect with this resistance view of the Times is that the paper completely rejects it. "Our role is not to be the opposition to Donald Trump," Baquet said at the SXSW conference in March 2017. "Our role is to cover him aggressively." Times reporter David Sanger reiterated Baquet at another conference later that year. "The biggest single mistake we could do in navigating our coverage of the Trump administration would be to let ourselves become the resistance to the government in place," Sanger said. In expecting the Times to be something it has vowed it will never, ever be, members of the resistance have positioned themselves for perpetual disenchantment.

What is it about Twitter that causes some people to lose all sense of proportion when they sign on? Is it the delight of joining a mob? The immediate rush that hacktivism produces?

Without a doubt, no medium compares to Twitter if the goal is to detect enemies and commence punishing them. Faster than you can say "Red Queen," a murmuration of tweets can form and call for heads to roll.

The Times deserves many of the brickbats tossed its way, so I'm not arguing that it's above criticism. But there's something unhinged about isolating a headline, even an infelicitous one, to urge people to end their subscriptions and demand the sacking of an editor. If you're that keen on having your views parroted back to you, I doubt that any publication, no matter how partisan, can satisfy you on that score. Even limiting your social media accounts to people who reliably agree with you might not be enough. Disputation has a way of surfacing, even among friends and comrades.

The easy lesson of the great Times headline dust-up is that you should never judge a story by its headline. But when you do, just remember to read the story before you start attacking people on Twitter.

The New York Times, as the article notes, has been critical of Trump throughout his candidacy and presidency.  They've done substantial work and, for the most part, not focused on trivial things like "Hamberders" or Trump's Diet Coke habit.  Even with my very low opinion of Twitter and the people who Tweet; I'm still surprised that a single headline would cause this sort of frenzy.  What reliable news source could ever be ideologically pure enough to satisfy the Twitter mob?

[The Brain]

The slightest heresy must be punished severely, lest the cult become less unhinged.

[mongers]

From Politico:



The New York Times, as the article notes, has been critical of Trump throughout his candidacy and presidency.  They've done substantial work and, for the most part, not focused on trivial things like "Hamberders" or Trump's Diet Coke habit.  Even with my very low opinion of Twitter and the people who Tweet; I'm still surprised that a single headline would cause this sort of frenzy.  What reliable news source could ever be ideologically pure enough to satisfy the Twitter mob?

The British journalist has written an interesting book and done a radio series on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Shamed