ChatterBank3 mins ago
Why Is President Trump Systematic Criticised By The Press And Media No Matter What He Does?
77 Answers
Had the previous President gone to the trouble of twice meeting the North Korean leader to try and come to some agreement over US sanctions and North Korean nuclear weapons, the press and media would have been praising him from the hilltops.
Notice also how the Guardian have chosen to call the President of the United States by his surname, yet have politely chosen to call the North Korean leader by his first name, Kim (how sweet of them)
Notice also how the Guardian have chosen to call the President of the United States by his surname, yet have politely chosen to call the North Korean leader by his first name, Kim (how sweet of them)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It is true that Trump had spoken of rebalancing the NAFTA, and of some adjustment to the China trade arrangement, but the Mexico / wall connection was not mentioned until people started to point out that Mexico wasn't stumping up cash or bricks and mortar. I don't remember any suggestion that Canada should pay for the wall, so perhaps NAFTA needs to be two completely separate arrangements for clarity (I think I have heard the Donald say this too, but I can't pin down where or when). I don't think I called it a "cynical deflection of failure", but I will state my belief that he is revising history to fit the present, so pretty much the same thing with the emphasis shifted just a fraction.
Something I respect about Trump is that his lack of political genes helps him avoid the classical left / right definitions. This is refreshing, as it pushes all of us to examine what we really want as an outcome. He has recast the debate about free trade and tariffs, wrongfootingbRepublicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Labour alike.
Is imposing new tariffs encouraging or discouraging free trade? Or just ensuring freedom where he wants it by discouraging it elsewhere? You are probably right that I wasn't paying attention. It was the start of what turned out to be a much longer night than expected. While there are clear differences between EU and my thinking (if that was what you meant?) it seems to me that the restrictive/mixed economy of the EU offered us more free trade than the laissez-faire/mixed economy of the WTO, with the increased tariffs it brings (in quantity, if not also in price). The wall, in this context, is a red herring. Even where it exists, bad people tunnel under it rather than simply go round. The economics of crime is as sophisticated as that of the meat trade, sending live animals abroad to be slaughtered before bringing them back to eat, for example. It seems ludicrous but it works for the people maximising profits.
I hope that explains my position more clearly, vetuste_ennemi. Another commenter suggested I might have some inside knowledge of the peninsula. I don't, and didn't claim it. I am aware that even Trump's own appointed staff and apolitical advisers are frustrated that he does not read his briefs. This is widely documented and not my personal opinion. I could point to his success in the Singapore talks, claiming to have demanded closure of a testing facility that had been reported as being critically damaged a few months previously. I didn't need to read his advice to know what had been public knowledge before the talks were arranged.
South Korea had the capability to make nuclear weapons forty years ago but did not pursue an independent arsenal because of changes around the world under Reagan and Gorbachev. There are several other countries, such as Israel and South Africa, who were allowed to develop their programmes for ideological reasons, but South Korea was a bulwark against communism, so has always been protected by the US. This is not privileged information. I have never read the 'Pyongyang Times', but I am inclined to lump that suggestion into my earlier comment about Trump changing perspectives. It almost feels as if you are accusing me of being a North Korean apologist simply because I have read open source information about the military capability that Europe looks to for our security. Who would have predicted that five years ago?
Something I respect about Trump is that his lack of political genes helps him avoid the classical left / right definitions. This is refreshing, as it pushes all of us to examine what we really want as an outcome. He has recast the debate about free trade and tariffs, wrongfootingbRepublicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Labour alike.
Is imposing new tariffs encouraging or discouraging free trade? Or just ensuring freedom where he wants it by discouraging it elsewhere? You are probably right that I wasn't paying attention. It was the start of what turned out to be a much longer night than expected. While there are clear differences between EU and my thinking (if that was what you meant?) it seems to me that the restrictive/mixed economy of the EU offered us more free trade than the laissez-faire/mixed economy of the WTO, with the increased tariffs it brings (in quantity, if not also in price). The wall, in this context, is a red herring. Even where it exists, bad people tunnel under it rather than simply go round. The economics of crime is as sophisticated as that of the meat trade, sending live animals abroad to be slaughtered before bringing them back to eat, for example. It seems ludicrous but it works for the people maximising profits.
I hope that explains my position more clearly, vetuste_ennemi. Another commenter suggested I might have some inside knowledge of the peninsula. I don't, and didn't claim it. I am aware that even Trump's own appointed staff and apolitical advisers are frustrated that he does not read his briefs. This is widely documented and not my personal opinion. I could point to his success in the Singapore talks, claiming to have demanded closure of a testing facility that had been reported as being critically damaged a few months previously. I didn't need to read his advice to know what had been public knowledge before the talks were arranged.
South Korea had the capability to make nuclear weapons forty years ago but did not pursue an independent arsenal because of changes around the world under Reagan and Gorbachev. There are several other countries, such as Israel and South Africa, who were allowed to develop their programmes for ideological reasons, but South Korea was a bulwark against communism, so has always been protected by the US. This is not privileged information. I have never read the 'Pyongyang Times', but I am inclined to lump that suggestion into my earlier comment about Trump changing perspectives. It almost feels as if you are accusing me of being a North Korean apologist simply because I have read open source information about the military capability that Europe looks to for our security. Who would have predicted that five years ago?
So, lol, they haven't got nuclear weapons. Yet the whole basis of your attack on Trump re Korea was that they did.
I should be very careful in future about lifting replies from left-wing sites to bolster your 'argument'.
Right wing (normal)people invent stupid/insane comments to put on lefty sites to see if they can get any upticks. And they do, lol.
I should be very careful in future about lifting replies from left-wing sites to bolster your 'argument'.
Right wing (normal)people invent stupid/insane comments to put on lefty sites to see if they can get any upticks. And they do, lol.
I apologise for not making myself clear. Sometimes I lazily assume that people looking to offer an alternate view have given it some thought first. I said that South Korea did not build up their own arsenal because of world events. Those events included Reagan and Gorbachev, who were leaders of the most powerful nations on Earth, making agreements on the size and range of weapons, and where they should be stationed. My comment about European nations watching the US for leadership was intended to convey that they could rely on US nuclear support rather than have to build their own stockpiles. You might not remember, but South Africa was a very different country then, ruled by white men. This would have been politically sensitive in the US, where black people are now allowed to do most things white folks are, so South Africa was allowed to develop weapons technology of their own, just so long as they didn't make a big noise about it. South Korea was less contentious so, like Europe, it was protected by US weapons.
Again, I bow to your knowledge of left- and right-wing websites. I avoid both where possible, for the precise reasons you have given. Sometimes people who look at those sites smugly thinking they are laughing at thickoes don't recognise how easily they themselves can be duped. These simple truths can be shown by "stupid/insane comments" they post, and their use of "lol" as a synonym for "look how witty and clever I am". I was quite relieved when my children grew out of it.
Again, I bow to your knowledge of left- and right-wing websites. I avoid both where possible, for the precise reasons you have given. Sometimes people who look at those sites smugly thinking they are laughing at thickoes don't recognise how easily they themselves can be duped. These simple truths can be shown by "stupid/insane comments" they post, and their use of "lol" as a synonym for "look how witty and clever I am". I was quite relieved when my children grew out of it.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticise the press. Trump still doesn't get this (and nor do many of his supporters) but that's hardly surprising given the amount of time he spends sucking up to dictators.
Also - and as I know others have already explained- in Korea and other Far East countries, family name comes first and given name last- that's why we say Chairman Mao and not Chairman Zedong. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.
Also - and as I know others have already explained- in Korea and other Far East countries, family name comes first and given name last- that's why we say Chairman Mao and not Chairman Zedong. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.
//Freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticise the press. Trump still doesn't get this (and nor do many of his supporters)//
Haha talk about libtard projection? Look what happens when Trump criticises "the press".
//Congressional Democrats are planning to hold hearings about President Trump’s criticisms of establishment news outlets, according to a new report.
Bloomberg News reports that the House Judiciary Committee, which is currently led by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), will seek to investigate Trump calling the media “fake news” and “enemies of the people.”
The president’s repeated declarations that the “fake news” media is the “enemy of the people” has indeed upset many Democrats and media figures.
Possible 2020 hopeful and media darling Beto O’Rourke used the line to attack Trump and Republicans in 2018, accusing him of inciting violence against the media.//
Ohh Trump "gets" criticising the press alright. The problem is that the "press" don't get it. After decades of being able to spout anything they care to, they are in a blind panic about freedom of speech…….you know, the freedom to call them out when they lie and manipulate. Not a one way street any longer is it now.
Haha talk about libtard projection? Look what happens when Trump criticises "the press".
//Congressional Democrats are planning to hold hearings about President Trump’s criticisms of establishment news outlets, according to a new report.
Bloomberg News reports that the House Judiciary Committee, which is currently led by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), will seek to investigate Trump calling the media “fake news” and “enemies of the people.”
The president’s repeated declarations that the “fake news” media is the “enemy of the people” has indeed upset many Democrats and media figures.
Possible 2020 hopeful and media darling Beto O’Rourke used the line to attack Trump and Republicans in 2018, accusing him of inciting violence against the media.//
Ohh Trump "gets" criticising the press alright. The problem is that the "press" don't get it. After decades of being able to spout anything they care to, they are in a blind panic about freedom of speech…….you know, the freedom to call them out when they lie and manipulate. Not a one way street any longer is it now.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.