What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

What word?

[LaCroix]

exaggeration

[grumbler]

do people think steve jobs was a liar with his "reality distortion field"? it's the exact same thing.

You know as little about Jobs's "reality distortion field" as you do about punctuation. 

[LaCroix]

You know as little about Jobs's "reality distortion field" as you do about punctuation.

then explain it in your own words

[Admiral Yi]

exaggeration

I see.  So which is far from the truth, your exaggeration or the media's actual reporting on Trump's awfulness and hatred of him?

[LaCroix]

depends how you consider "far from the truth." it's technically not true the media constantly publishes articles that say "everyone hates trump." but, the overall message taken from all the negative headlines is that trump is terrible. because they all say it, except for the "biased conservative rags," it conveys the idea to the average person that the media is saying TRUMP = BAD. this gets old. people stop listening when it's the same thing over and over, just another trump story. so they agree that yeah, makes sense that the media is biased. the outrage about trump over every little thing gets tiresome.

it's the story of chicken little, so that even when trump does the occasional really bad thing, people don't care as much as they probably should

[mongers]

Oh dear.

[alfred russel]

To wade into the extremely dangerous territory of saying there is some merit in something laCroix says...

It was a bit jarring regarding the overwhelming negative coverage of the 7 country travel ban to see the first opinion polls show the country was roughly split on the topic.

[Admiral Yi]

depends how you consider "far from the truth." it's technically not true the media constantly publishes articles that say "everyone hates trump." but, the overall message taken from all the negative headlines is that trump is terrible. because they all say it, except for the "biased conservative rags," it conveys the idea to the average person that the media is saying TRUMP = BAD. this gets old. people stop listening when it's the same thing over and over, just another trump story. so they agree that yeah, makes sense that the media is biased. the outrage about trump over every little thing gets tiresome.

it's the story of chicken little, so that even when trump does the occasional really bad thing, people don't care as much as they probably should

I don't understand how "gets old," "same thing over and over," and "tiresome" support the claim of far from the truth.  Which is a polite way of saying they don't.

[LaCroix]

to use simplified numbers, groups X and Y compromise equal portions of the country, 50-50. group X happens to have more members in control of well-reputable news agencies. group X thinks something is horrific, but not group Y. group X spends a lot of time saying it's horrific, but group Y just doesn't buy it. group Y naturally loses some respect in the news agencies under group X's influence

groups X and Y here aren't the usual liberal/conservative. intelligent centrists, part conservative and liberal on different topics, are in X, because trump isn't a typical conservative. so you have a lot of educated, well-off or decently well-off members of society who might normally act as gatekeepers preventing constant hate articles... suddenly allowing them through because they think it's justified--they don't like trump. and sure, let's even call it justified under their own, group X mentality. let's say it's not wrong. but it's still happening.

[Admiral Yi]

to use simplified numbers, groups X and Y compromise equal portions of the country, 50-50. group X happens to have more members in control of well-reputable news agencies. group X thinks something is horrific, but not group Y. group X spends a lot of time saying it's horrific, but group Y just doesn't buy it. group Y naturally loses some respect in the news agencies under group X's influence

groups X and Y here aren't the usual liberal/conservative. intelligent centrists, part conservative and liberal on different topics, are in X, because trump isn't a typical conservative. so you have a lot of educated, well-off or decently well-off members of society who might normally act as gatekeepers preventing constant hate articles... suddenly allowing them through because they think it's justified--they don't like trump. and sure, let's even call it justified under their own, group X mentality. let's say it's not wrong. but it's still happening.

The only part of this post I would consider even remotely related to the claim of "far from the truth" is suddenly allowing through constant hate articles, which is merely a restatement of your premise, not a defense of it.

Unless you're intending to suggest that the truth is democratically determined.  Which I suggest you choose not to pursue, as it's super boneheaded.

[LaCroix]

"truth" in the context of this discussion is democratically determined in the sense that, for example, it's bad to ban muslim immigrants--get angered by the banning of muslim immigrants and publish articles that would normally not get published. a segment of the population believes it's bad to ban muslim immigrants. another segment of the population doesn't think that's bad. a segment of the population thinks trump is their voice, and regardless of whether he is, there is no or very little voice of this particular group that exists in the standard media or in the leadership of the political parties. so the group turns to someone like trump, who best offers something to them.

[Admiral Yi]

"truth" in the context of this discussion is democratically determined in the sense that, for example, it's bad to ban muslim immigrants--get angered by the banning of muslim immigrants and publish articles that would normally not get published. a segment of the population believes it's bad to ban muslim immigrants. another segment of the population doesn't think that's bad. a segment of the population thinks trump is their voice, and regardless of whether he is, there is no or very little voice of this particular group that exists in the standard media or in the leadership of the political parties. so the group turns to someone like trump, who best offers something to them.

If your point is that the values of the editorial board of the New York Times are different from those of Trump supporters, well no shit Sherlock.

An editorial criticizing the Muslim immigrant ban is not "far from the truth."  It is an expression of the writer's opinion and an explanation of why he holds that opinion. A non-editorial article about people stranded at airports, families separated, the chaotic implementation of the ban, etc. is not "far from the truth."

[katmai]

You are very patient man Yip.

[LaCroix]

the "non-editorial article about people stranded at airports, families separated, the chaotic implementation of the ban, etc.," would read differently if the journalistic integrity remained the same but the authors and staff of the news agency happened to have personal views consistent with the average muslim or white male anti-immigrant extremist, for two examples using opposite ends of the spectrum. different things are subconsciously focused on, and different sources are used. the selection of sources. the editing process, etc.