The Stuff removed / changed / pulled relating to Trump

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,901
275
88
Country
United Kingdom
If you refer to views like "racism is bad" or "government should serve the people". Then you're absolutely right.

Jeez, how awfully biased, don't you think? /s
Or you know select which opinion pieces to accept and reject based sometimes on the present political situation or partisan lines.


Because it's only good when your party does it not the enemy.


Not according to the allegations of election fraud. The claims say Trump won by a landslide, something not supported by most news outlets other than Fox News. Therefore, according to the claims, we can extrapolate that the mayority of Americans voted by Trump and watch Fox News; making the average American (the average person I assume you asked about) the Fox News' audience. Am I missing something here?
Well some people were claiming Trump lost and the election was hijacked when Trump won


 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
And what did the media claimed?


CNN seemed to agree, right after they changed their stance.

Link for avnger: https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/10/opin...sia-hack-americas-election-waldman/index.html


I like this quote:

It’s obvious that the Republicans who control Congress can’t be counted on to conduct anything resembling a real investigation into this matter, since it may have delivered their candidate the White House (if it had something to do with Benghazi, then they might be interested).

So if nothing else, there should be a bipartisan commission like the one we chartered after 9/11, with the resources necessary to learn what happened and the independence to speak honestly about what it finds.
SOUNDS FAMILIAR DOESN'T IT?!??!?!?!?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,180
168
68
Unless you're trying to say "the majority of Americans watch Fox news, therefore the minority watches CNN and because they're the minority, they're automatically smarter and know how to differentiate between opinion and "real news"? In which case that's a leap.
Smarts have nothing to do with it. If a person's main news outlet doesn't make a proper separation of opinion from news, they will expect that to be the case in other outlets. Not sure why you insist I'm calling Fox News' audience dumb. I'm trying to see things from the other aisle's perspective as you suggested, so I don't know what to say when now you expect me to conclude from my observations that the other side is dumb while I'm giving them as much benefit of the doubt as possible.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,901
275
88
Country
United Kingdom
And what did the media claimed? Did they agree with the Court's decisions or disagreed?
Well you saw some media clips and pundits etc in that little twitter video.

Some took no position. Some were saying it was stolen. A few written pieces were imaging a revolution with the army siding against Trump

Smarts have nothing to do with it. If a person's main news outlet doesn't make a proper separation of opinion from news, they will expect that to be the case in other outlets. Not sure why you insist I'm calling Fox News' audience dumb. I'm trying to see things from the other aisle's perspective as you suggested, so I don't know what to say when now you expect me to conclude from my observations that the other side is dumb while I'm giving them as much benefit of the doubt as possible.
I dunno does having to be specifically told something is an opinion and not being able to understand and assess that oneself really work as a sign of one group being smarter?
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
Not really. Specifying "bipartisan" makes a world of difference.

He went on to say that “free and fair elections are the foundation of democracy,” which “is why in this moment we need AG Wilson to conduct a full audit of South Carolina’s voting and election systems, a bipartisan project able to eliminate voter doubts about fraud.”

Smarts have nothing to do with it. If a person's main news outlet doesn't make a proper separation of opinion from news, they will expect that to be the case in other outlets. Not sure why you insist I'm calling Fox News' audience dumb. I'm trying to see things from the other aisle's perspective as you suggested, so I don't know what to say when now you expect me to conclude from my observations that the other side is dumb while I'm giving them as much benefit of the doubt as possible.
Would it help if I instead asked "Do a majority of CNN's readers know how to distinguish between an opinion piece and "real news"?"

I still don't see how any of this has to do with whether or not CNN is biased against Trump, as shown in my images, or not. It seems like the conversation around "how many people read Fox" and "whether or not Fox makes opinions clear" is an irrelevant tangent.

You're using "opinion piece" as a magic wand, as if you can just put something in the opinion section, or put a disclaimer on it, and then people know to put up their mental defenses so that it doesn't unduly influence their own opinions. You have no proof that this happens.
 
Last edited:

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,180
168
68
I still don't see how any of this has to do with whether or not CNN is biased against Trump, as shown in my images, or not. It seems like the conversation around "how many people read Fox" and "whether or not Fox makes opinions clear" is an irrelevant tangent.
Well, the post from which this conversation started was about Fox News profiting about hate and demagoguery being much more profitable than the facts, and the "CNN are hypocrites too" is as irrelevantly tangential. So, it was a pleasure losing time with you.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
Well, the post from which this conversation started was about Fox News profiting about hate and demagoguery being much more profitable than the facts, and the "CNN are hypocrites too" is as irrelevantly tangential.
Yes, it is. I'm not trying to defend Fox. I'm making the ADDITIONAL point that CNN is just as guilty of sowing hate and division with their bias and double-standards when it comes to Trump.

That's why I said: "Let's not even pretend like hypocrisy and double standards are exclusive to Fox News"
And "It's clearly profitable for CNN to switch their stance to paint Trump in a negative light. I wonder if that contributed to any division?"

Then you seemed to disagree with this and began to defend CNN by saying that they were just opinion pieces.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,901
275
88
Country
United Kingdom
Well, the post from which this conversation started was about Fox News profiting about hate and demagoguery being much more profitable than the facts, and the "CNN are hypocrites too" is as irrelevantly tangential. So, it was a pleasure losing time with you.
I mean they just side with different demagogues.

 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,824
421
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
You know what would "debunk" this? If we could find anyone at CNN defending or praising Trump or his polices.
If instead of seeing articles like "X is good, Trump did X, X is bad now", we saw articles like "X is bad, Trump did X, X is good now".

These examples all have the TIMELINE in common. Things shift from good to bad, or unacceptable to criticize to acceptable to criticize when Trump does them.

I'm going to stop you right there because you've just demonstrated that - once again - you didn't read beyond the headline and didn't think beyond what your echo chamber told you to think. We can set aside the health question as an idiotic attempt at a gotcha on the part of your 'collage', utterly reliant on the idea that people like yourself will take it at the word of its insinuation and won't actually look into its claims. It tries to allege hypocrisy because one journalist was prompted to ask how much emphasis we should put on a candidate's health because Trump's cult jumping on Clinton having pneumonia to exaggerate and propagandize her illness as making her necessarily unfit for office. The article notes that there are a few obvious things that would be important in forming an informed opinion (notably terminal or mental illness) but, short of that, candidates have a right to medical privacy (which historically most candidates have been quite content to keep). And to allege hypocrisy, your collage contrasts this with a "What we know about Donald Trump's health" article written by a different journalist. Moreover, the journalist who released the latter article had literally released a "What we know about Hillary Clinton's health" the day before. So the characterization of "they changed their tune when it was time to talk about Trump" is bullshit for more than a few reasons.

But let's look at the big issue you're trying to paint as hypocrisy. You know, "Everyone should have a shot at paid family leave" vs. "Trump's budget to include paid family leave, but may face trouble in Congress"? Setting aside for a minute that - despite the implication of your collage - the latter doesn't actually make anything remotely approaching a value judgement for or against the proposal, it also notes that the Congressional opposition in question is attributable to congressional Republicans who had historically been vocally opposed to such action. The third article ("How paid family leave hurts women"), is also very much not the "this is bad" turnaround you're trying to suggest, instead saying that it's a wonderful thought but it's necessarily an incomplete one, one step in the process rather than a full solution, and that risks backfiring if treated as a full solution that can fix the problem on its own. It then proceeds to spend the much of the rest of the article suggesting what the additional steps might be, including some legislation that was then on the table.

Moreover, none of this comes even close to a contradiction. The "everyone should have paid family leave" article centers on the lack of support for it (13% of private sector) and inconsistency even within the same company. As an example of this it cites Starbucks, which gives 18 weeks paid time off for new mothers in corporate and 12 weeks for new fathers in corporate, but only 6 weeks for barista mothers and none for barista fathers, and saying that in the end having a greater family support ends up being an economic net boon. Again, the second article doesn't make any value judgements, and the third is fundamentally a plea to keep moving forward rather than assume that paid parental leave is 'mission accomplished'.

Perhaps you should try actually reading and applying some actual research instead of simply taking the claims of your echo chamber as gospel.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,054
3,152
118
CNN seemed to agree, right after they changed their stance.
Incidentally, you are aware that most media organisations accept different opinions from their contributors, right?
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
The article notes that
I'm sure everybody knows by now that most people don't read the article. That's the problem. What the article says is largely irrelevant. The idea is planted in people minds by the headline, or in this case, the tweet announcing the article.

So doing a deep dive into the article to say "actually, this is really very fair" doesn't help deprogram all the people who never even read the article in the first place from their mental conditioning. Those people are stuck thinking "yeah, how dare Trump!"

But let's look at the big issue you're trying to paint as hypocrisy. You know, "Everyone should have a shot at paid family leave" vs. "Trump's budget to include paid family leave, but may face trouble in Congress"?
No, that was actually a three parter: 1) Everyone needs family leave! 2) Trump announces family leave 3) Family leave hurts women!
The double-standard is supposed to be between #1 and #3, not #1 and #2.

Incidentally, you are aware that most media organisations accept different opinions from their contributors, right?
Yes. Are you aware that most journalists and writers don't get carte blanche to have whatever they write appear on the site? That their opinions can be edited, approved, denied, or requested? It would be one thing if it were closer to a user-generated platform, but news orgs are not that. If an org wants to have an anti or pro-Trump bias, they'll make it happen.

---

This is fun, here's another, this time by the same reporter, changing his story because Trump said it.

 
Last edited:

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,488
607
118
Country
United States
Yes. Are you aware that most journalists and writers don't get carte blanche to have whatever they write appear on the site? That their opinions can be edited, approved, denied, or requested? It would be one thing if it were closer to a user-generated platform, but news orgs are not that. If an org wants to have an anti or pro-Trump bias, they'll make it happen.
All from CNN:

Trump Deserves a Second Term

Amy Coney Barrett's Near Perfect Performance

Biden May Seem Like a Centrist but his Platform is Progressive

An op-ed calling for Trump to be re-elected, an op-ed praising Barrett, and an op-ed calling Biden a progressive who would worsen America's financial health. So one-sided....

Where are the goalposts going next?
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,824
421
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
I'm sure everybody knows by now that most people don't read the article. That's the problem. What the article says is largely irrelevant. The idea is planted in people minds by the headline, or in this case, the tweet announcing the article.

So doing a deep dive into the article to say "actually, this is really very fair" doesn't help deprogram all the people who never even read the article in the first place from their mental conditioning. Those people are stuck thinking "yeah, how dare Trump!"
Old Adage for you, House: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." You're once again trying to bullshit your way through the conversation and nobody's buying it.

For fuck's sake, there's not even a value judgement in the title! You're trying to force one by truncating it and then reading malice into a simple statement of fact. The full title is "Trump's budget to include paid family leave, but may face trouble in Congress". Even if we cut out everything after the comma like you insist on in desperation to salvage your intellectually lazy take, "Trump's budget to include paid family leave" still has no value judgement. You're simply assuming a negative value judgement out of pure intellectual laziness and prejudice.

No, that was actually a three parter: 1) Everyone needs family leave! 2) Trump announces family leave 3) Family leave hurts women!
The double-standard is supposed to be between #1 and #3, not #1 and #2.
And yet, if you actually read the articles, you'd know that there still is no double standard, as I already explained to you.
 

Elijin

Elite Member
Legacy
May 10, 2020
1,695
474
88
The links are right there in the images for 4/5 of the articles:
#1 https://archive.fo/95N8h
#2 https://archive.fo/3w6ZL
#3 https://archive.fo/uH6yn
#4 they appeared to have taken down this tweet, but this seems to be the article in question.
#5 https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/health/donald-trump-health/index.html, published a few days after #4, which was probably why they took down the tweet, and why the screenshot was taken, because it so perfectly highlighted the hypocrisy.

Want more? I got a whole folder of these "collages".
30 seconds of reading informed me that not only was there an equivalent "What we know About Hillary Clinton's health" and that both were collections of the information being publicized by the campaigns.

But that doesnt really fit your narrative, I guess.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
An op-ed calling for Trump to be re-elected
Great! I wonder if anybody ever saw it, or if it was buried? I don't see CNN tweeting about it.

Old Adage for you, House: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." You're once again trying to bullshit your way through the conversation and nobody's buying it.

For fuck's sake, there's not even a value judgement in the title! You're trying to force one by truncating it and then reading malice into a simple statement of fact. The full title is "Trump's budget to include paid family leave, but may face trouble in Congress".
Like I said, #2 is just to set the scene for the audience so that they can get the context of why CNN changed their tune in article #3
I'm not saying it's a value judgement or assuming a negative value judgement. I said as much with my last post:

"No, that was actually a three parter: 1) Everyone needs family leave! 2) Trump announces family leave 3) Family leave hurts women!
The double-standard is supposed to be between #1 and #3, not #1 and #2."

And yet, if you actually read the articles, you'd know that there still is no double standard, as I already explained to you.
The headline is enough to influence people, as I already explained to you.

30 seconds of reading informed me that not only was there an equivalent "What we know About Hillary Clinton's health" and that both were collections of the information being publicized by the campaigns.

But that doesnt really fit your narrative, I guess.
That must be why they pulled the tweet, they couldn't both slam Trump for attacking Hillary's health and report on her health without even looking like greater hypocrites.
 
Last edited:

Elijin

Elite Member
Legacy
May 10, 2020
1,695
474
88
Orrrr they published an article discussing using health issues as attack campaigns. Then in the days following, they published articles summing up the health information which both parties were self reporting about their candidates.