1984 Reagan/Mondale, Reagan gets 59% of the popular vote and 98% of the electoral college -- that is a landslide. Trump getting 46% of the popular vote and 56% of the electoral college sure doesn't seem like a landslide.
Is this your first election? Consider even just the last one: Obama vs. Romney. Obama performed far worse than he did in his previous election, and it was absolutely no landslide. Maybe 2008 was a landslide, but not 2012.
Yet in 2012 Obama won more electoral votes than Trump (332 instead of 304), and won the popular vote by 3.9%, instead of losing it by 2.1%.
Trump won, yes, but the idea that it was a landslide is patently foolish, and makes the rest of your message weaker. If you're so easily misled on the details, why would I have any confidence in your bigger picture?
I don't believe that there isn't "true" objective coverage but Fox News with Hannity and Carlson are really providing coverage that is sharp, and enlightening. They're actually informing the public instead of participating in the media churn.
To my understanding they didn't retract their erroneous position for more than 24 hours after accurate details were known. Many of their listeners still believe the shooter was a Muslim immigrant. Trump's press secretary, knowing this falsehood is widespread, has cited this incident as a reason to support the travel ban. The level of disinformation that comes from Fox News approaches that of Russian state run media.
[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-gu...
You are wrong to pretend this incident is an isolated case of biased reporting. It's part of a pattern of deliberately misleading reporting from Fox News that obscures the truth or over represents what is known.
BTW, Reuters reported the same too[1]. So did The Times in UK[2]. Not exactly bastions of Republicans.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-mosque-shooting-sce... [2] http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/suspects-shouted-all...
> You are wrong to pretend this incident is an isolated case of biased reporting.
I'm not pretending anything of the sort. On the contrary, I am clearly stating this is not an evidence of Fox being biased, but of Fox relaying information from a reliable source, which they had no reason to suspect was wrong, but still turned out to be wrong. It happens.
If Fox reported "somebody committed a mass shooting, must be a Muslim" - without any evidence - that would be biased reporting, inventing facts with no basis. Making a mistake is not a proof of bias, per se - unless there's a pattern of mistakes that always points in one direction regardless of the evidence. Then it's the definition of bias.
This is absolutely a pattern in their reporting - one of many ways in which they misrepresent events.
I honestly can't believe I have to argue the case that Fox News is a biased media outlet -- the argument has been made by better people than me in far more depth. I don't think Fox itself would even deny they are biased...
Of course, liberal news organizations distort the truth as well.
It has faded away, but that's only because more important things are going on. Trump is an immediate threat to the nation in ways the DNC could never be.
If you're referring to the Immigration EO... please read it first. It's a really well-written bill. For those curious about whether it was a religious discrimination see this pie chart of the Muslims that are excluded[1]. The goal of the EO is to mitigate the influx of refugees from states that foment anti-Western ideals. It just happens to be this group are radicalized, and violent Islamic people.
[1] https://i.redditmedia.com/09_97z77yJ2MRBOVMVYvkcVEi66uJI5KSw...
I don't understand this reasoning. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to take only two examples, are also places where a lot anti-Western activity comes from, both in ideology (via jihadist religious schools), and logistic support. If what you say is true, they should have been included in the ban.
Equally illogical is Trump's argument [1] that they couldn't take the time to consult the relevant parties from Justice, State, and Congress because that would have meant "the "bad" would rush into our country" before the EO's enactment. How does that not apply to the Muslim countries left out, like the two mentioned above, whose citizens have been the source of documented attacks on U.S. interests multiple times in the past (as opposed to the 7 countries included in the order)?
[1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/82606014382566605...
Yes, his Immigration related EO does not affect nearly as many people as the rhetoric would indicate -- but what it does do is prevent travel to the United States for some 22,000 persons (and counting) at the very least while, by consensus, not really being likely to prevent entry to actual terrorists. It is not that the bill is truly discriminatory, just that it is likely to be ineffective in its aims while damaging international credibility of America as a land of inclusion (or, to rely on imagery from the plaque of the Statue of Liberty, a golden door, to accept your tempest-tossed refuse).
Second, while his threat of 20% tariffs on importation from Mexico may seem like it originally promotes "buying local", there are several long term ramifications. First, construction materials and machinery [1] for American factories will ultimately increase the price of American produced goods as a result of this measure. Second, this bill will, directly and immediately, grant China greater bargaining power--with the United States. Thirdly, it causes Mexico to negotiate more aggressively with its local neighbors and with overseas partners, potentially closing trade avenues altogether with America.
Ultimately, it boils down to one thing: Trump's measures appear to be reactionary, with little view for long term fallout, international reputation, and future trade relations with partners that are not directly related to his current target (eg: trade relations with Mexico deteriorating, giving China greater negotiating power).
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-does-the-u-s-import-from-me...
It potentially affects, well, everyone, really: while much focus has been on the effect of the refugee ban and the 90-day shutdown from named countries, the order directs certain executive officers to determine information that foreign countries (all countries, not just the specific ones addressed by the 90 say ban) must share with the US regarding potential immigrants and orders that those officers provide recommendations of countries that should be added to an immigration ban list because they do not share the required information.
So it impacts all potential immigrants to the United States, and all third parties (including US citizens about whom a foreign government has information) about whom (because of direct or indirect relationship ship to a potential immigrant) the US might demand information from a foreign government as a condition of allowing immigration from that country.
Reactionary? Yes, I agree. Trump's most shining quality is that he acts quickly. Obama didn't accomplishing this much in his 8 years, as Trump has in 2 weeks... I would anticipate he has a very lean and agile approach to legislation and everything is subject to iteration.
While many bills have unintended consequences and side effects, these are often not recognized at the time. Pointing out the negative consequences for people who have already passed American vetting procedures, preventing access to persons already in flight when it passed, detaining persons in airports immediately, and the failure of the bill to provide any tangible benefits as far as anti-terrorism measures are concerned were hardly unforeseen. These were immediately pointed out by security professionals.
I am still of the hopeful and optimistic opinion that Trump does not use his "very lean and agile approach" to unilaterally void NAFTA and impose a 20% fee on Mexican imports, as just the foreseeable consequences of that action are far reaching, negative, and highly deleterious to the United States' reputation internationally. The unforeseen consequences? The economic fallout that we cannot immediately predict? If they are mere extensions of what we already can see, I am afraid.
They made no attempt to compromise on the ACA. They didn't need to -- they passed it with zero GOP votes in the House and almost zero in the Senate. They didn't even let Reps or Senators see the bill before the vote!
This may be an accomplishment for people who wants immigrants out, but not for America or everyone. Also, what i hated most about that particular EO is that, it also bans people with Green cards and student visa's. There are numerous students who were stopped and detained which doesn't make any sense, but again this is what you get when you want to act fast without thinking through.
I say time will tell how this step affects things in general.
I think from certain angles, you could argue Trumps response hasn't been strong enough (why wasn't SA included in that list; everybody tends to agree that is completely absurd)?
[0] http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/911-hijackers-and-student-v...
There hasn't been anything like another 9/11 attack since and we've had 16 years, so maybe two Presidents and all of our allied governments with the same policy know more about what to do to keep the country safe than a two week old presidency.
[0] http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-...
I don't think that contradicts the other comment.
That some of them overstayed or didn't meet the terms of their visas
Err, no.
He has put out some Executive Orders, and done some hiring and firing. Even that has been enough to massively damage his Administration, such is the level of decision-making that we've seen so far.
What you describe as a "lean and agile approach to legislation" appears to be not bothering with legislation at all. Has there been any legislation passed during the Trump administration yet? I certainly haven't heard of anything big.
I don't know what "well-written" would mean here, but it's not a good order by any means.
The threat posed by Trump goes far beyond this, though. Right now, my hope is simply that we're all still alive to vote again in 2020. I'm quite serious about that. Trump has shown himself over and over to be highly insecure, obsessed with revenge, and unable to let any slight slide without a response. Put such a person in charge of the world's most powerful military and there's a good chance of a catastrophe.
Ignoring the threat of nuclear annihilation, there's also the threat to the foundations of our democracy. He constantly attacked our electoral system and refused to commit to accepting the outcome of the election. We didn't find out how he would have handled losing in 2016, but how would he handle losing in 2020, or hitting the 22nd Amendment in 2024? I wouldn't be at all surprised if he refuses to leave and precipitates a crisis.
There's plenty more, for example his offhand desire to strip American citizenship as punishment for flag burning, but those are the two main ones that concern me.
Yet it blocked MIT professors with work visas (initially even green cards until they backpedaled) just because they were born in Iran/etc.
The EO is ridiculously hamfisted.
But that's not how democratic leaders are meant to act, that's how dictators act.
I feel like America is selling its birthright - a democratic republic - for the illusion of security. It's been happening ever since 9/11 but now it's even worse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/27/...
The reason I bring this up, is that Trump has plethora of issues that do not need embellishment. Hyperbole will do nothing but make Trump supporters dig further in and reaffirm their beliefs. A woman on my FB feed the other day said that as a woman, she was likely to have her right to vote taken away by the next election. That type of comment does nothing but make people think 'crazy liberal'.
I don't want to go on vacation and then find I can't get back into America (where I have a job, a mortgage, a spouse, a social network and have lived for the past 9 years) because Trump suddenly took a dislike to my country of origin.
I'm not even from a Muslim country, but we have some Muslims, and plenty of non-white people, so given that Bannon was partly behind the EO and is openly white nationalist, who knows?
Green cards are also permanent residences so legally that is much harder to stop than not extending or granting new visas.
With that said, I'm against it and think it is bad policy on many fronts.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-adminis...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-b...
It's not at all clear that his policies do anything to accomplish that goal. His executive order on immigration was quite likely counterproductive to American interests. Sure, it disrupted travel for a large number of people that had already been through a thorough vetting process (the claims that doing this made us safer are weak, the existing vetting process was effective, people who went through it had killed 0 people in the US), but it also made the US look foolish and capricious.
I am not blind to Trump's virtues. Economically he has a lot of good ideas. I agree that PC was going too far! But he's a lying son of a gun who's trying to screw us all.
> The fact that almost every liberal in America is yelling at Trump more than they're yelling at the DNC (and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) shows the state of mainstream media.
Plenty of liberals in my liberal social media bubble were yelling at the DNC and DWS when they were doing news worthy things. But why should we still be? Trump is now the one doing things we think harmful.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
But even if they were dishonest that one time, one example, no matter how widely-reported, indicates systemic dishonesty.
Had they been responsibly covered, public sentiment would be more favorable towards Trump... since he's really been rapping on this MSM corruption for a while. If anything, Trump is at least an iconoclast and whether you like his policies it would at least command respect.
This is a very reasonable statement, but ultimately does not encapsulate the rhetoric that has been levied against the media by Trump specifically, nor his more ardent supporters.
Not covering proportional to gravity is not:
Anything similar to lies, fabrications, false news, misconstruing the news, or presenting the topic with a completely false narrative.
While it does certainly affect the narrative, and while CNN gives far more weight to articles favoring the left, this does not hurt Trump in any way as far as his getting elected was concerned. At the very least, the song played by the left leaning MSM (and that is a VERY IMPORTANT distinction, as Fox News represents the right leaning MSM; their viewer numbers have them as a larger body than CNN--how would they not be the true MSM?) lulled many Clinton supporters into a false sense of security. The post-election meltdowns by people who claimed they did not vote directly as a result of this false security, while anecdotal, points directly at that narrative.
And even if you allow that CNN reports on left leaning issues in a positive light while decrying conservative viewpoints, and Fox reports on right leaning issues positively while pointing out the issues in progressive topics, one cannot use them as direct opposition to each other, as neither tends to focus both on the positives and negatives in an issue in a way that could be considered equal. Equal airtime doctrines have also caused a negative skew, but that is another topic altogether.
Humans are not "rational" and pretending they are doesn't give you a moral high-ground.
See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/0...
Because of strong media polarization in the cable television news sector, coverage -- while it will show up on both sides of the fence -- will be prioritized to one topic or another entirely depending on politics. So MSNBC spent a huge amount more time exploring the Access Hollywood tapes / Russian hacking angle regarding Trump, while Fox News will cover Clinton's email scandal more.
This is not exactly surprising. I wouldn't call this "corruption". Having an opinion / bias is not corruption.
I will say that from a personal perspective, I find all of American cable news fairly awful, and one of the reasons is this "gotcha" fatigue when it comes to their outrage cycles. At some point, it's hard to figure out what is really a genuine fault and what is just some tabloid fluff designed to get the viewer demographic angry. This especially applies to the "gotchas" that devolve into outright wild conspiracy, such as the Podesta emails you reference (devolved into Pizzagate and who knows what else).
Although not my primary news source, my impression is that Reuters is much more sober than the current state of cable news.
Hillary's actions still haven't drawn the coverage that was deserved. A lot of them (see my top-level comment) would individually be deemed a national scandal had it been Trump.
A free citizen has a right to keep their tax documents private. We can't feel entitled about that.
Who are these people spreading ridiculous propaganda on hacker news?
So now, I've given up on TV news since MSNBC and FOX are a joke.
Immediately predict lame rhetoric about how bad the media is.
> When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News).
Oh right, the bastion of correct reporting, fucking Fox News. Questioning Obama's birth certificate. Warning about his terrorist fist jabs. Rightly admonishing him for asking for Dijon Mustard.
> As a litmus test... the fact that almost every liberal in America is yelling at Trump more than they're yelling at the DNC
The current president vs something that happened 8 months ago.
> doubled-down on Hillary the loss wasn't just technical––it was a landslide[1]
It wasn't a fucking landslide. 13th closest election in history by electoral college, massive loss in the popular vote. This is why Trump supporters need a fucking reality check and should maybe try some of that mainstream media. You are hooked on his propaganda and lies.
But looking through your history it seems like that may not be what you want.
Can we stop talking about the popular vote? As long as people know the electoral college is what matters, the popular vote is tainted. People who live in states that are not going to swing either a) don't vote or b) vote their ideal candidate.
HN is a place where we are typically critical of any studies methodology yet we hang on to a number as skewed as the popular vote. Imagine if you were polled and told "No matter what you vote your state is going red/blue. How do you plan to vote?" That is basically the question and it means the popular vote means very little in the end.
Then you don't understand what a landslide, electoral or otherwise, is. Of the post-WWII elections, virtually all were bigger wins, electorally, the exception being both of George W. Bush's elections, Nixon's 1968 election, and Kennedy's 1960 election.
Actually, while WWII is often used as a breakpoint for considering modern elections, the same is true if you extend the timeframe to post-WWI.
I guess the newspaper announcement was faked 60 years ago too?
Seriously dude, drop it. It's pathetic and sad. Hundreds of experts have looked at it, of course there is 1 racist goon who will say otherwise.
When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Anyone who follows Trump know these are the folks he's referring to. If he didn't like ALL of the media, he wouldn't even have a press corps. Reuters isn't really engaging with what Trump's saying.
Are Trump's claims substantiated? I would say, Yes.
During the last election cycle, anybody who knows anything about the DNC leaks, Podesta emails, CNN feeding Hillary questions during townhall meetings against Sanders, Hillary's gliding past the FBI investigations, "bleaching" her email servers (which were under subpoena), Bill Clinton's unprofessional meeting with Loretta Lynch... knows that there's some serious corruption happening at the top of these major news companies.
As a litmus test... the fact that almost every liberal in America is yelling at Trump more than they're yelling at the DNC (and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) shows the state of mainstream media. The DNC sabotaged Bernie Sanders nomination, and he was the only candidate that would have a chance of beating Trump (a very high chance since he had young vote). When the DNC sabotaged Sanders' nomination, and doubled-down on Hillary the loss wasn't just technical––it was a landslide[1]
Mainstream media is really broken in America. There really needs to be a breakup of corporation-owned news companies. It really is a swamp in Trump's idiom.
[1] http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president