Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

You can't put the National Review in the same sentence as Breitbart and Fox. They did what they could to prevent Trump in the first place, every contributor I follow on Twitter did not vote for him, and if you recall, they had a Republican debate they were sponsoring pulled over their Against Trump cover issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ovement-menace

I have found the NRO runs the full gamut of the right, from total wack-o lunatic paranoid fringe cases to hardened fascist ideologues to the rational but misguided. There is plenty there that would be at home in Breitbart or Fox.

I think conservative outlets face a problem. They don't survive if they don't throw red meat to their base, which has a core group of lunatics in it. The center-right, outside of a couple libertarian outposts, is no longer capable of supporting its own political infrastructure. Politico tried to be a center-right outlet, but soon found mostly the left read it. The Hoover Institution used to be viewed as hard-core establishment right, and is now seen by the right as a bunch of liberals with the occasional eggheady beta-male.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

You can't put the National Review in the same sentence as Breitbart and Fox. They did what they could to prevent Trump in the first place, every contributor I follow on Twitter did not vote for him, and if you recall, they had a Republican debate they were sponsoring pulled over their Against Trump cover issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ovement-menace

Okay, but in fairness to me, this was the ridiculous article on my feed when I included them:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...s-comey-russia

TM

[SEC_Chick]

I think that the positions of NRO contributors can vary, but even the most pro-Trump sentiment is limited to positions like: the travel ban may not be unconstitutional, but it's still stupid. They are very pro-Ben Sasse, which is an anti-Trump as you can get from the right, conceptually. At the inauguration, most were Trump skeptics, determined to praise or criticize when warranted, and that the criticism makes the case for the validity of any praise and vice versa. But the sense has been that Trump has delivered nothing from a policy perspective, and that his self inflicted wounds make actually pushing through any elements of a conservative agenda virtually impossible. "But Gorsuch!" isn't enough as he hasn't done anything on the SC yet and could turn out to be a Souter. And if Obama is thought so little of, "But Obama!" is not the minimum standard by which a Republican president should be judged. I think NRO qualifies generally as "anti-Trump".

On the other hand, there is a strong sense that the MSM does have a liberal bias. That is nothing new, and it doesn't keep Republicans from being elected, but the rage over Bush and Romney was turned up to 10, so now some in the media's heads are exploding and that the coverage by mainstream press is over the edge. The same people who were "meh" over the James Rosen story freak out about Trump's attacks on the media. WaPo has had to walk back outlandish claims in several stories. Too many to count really, but see Comey asking for funding right before he got fired, Rosenstein's supposed resignation, and the State Dept. mass walk out (when their resignations were accepted). Or the story today about the Saudi/UAE donations to Ivanka's charity, which turned out the be the World Bank. Many people now inherently mistrust the media (though more people still trust them than Trump), but it is in some ways, why we have Trump now. It's not to say Trump doesn't suck, because he indisputably does, but there's no need to lie or play into his "fake news" hand by putting out a story that is walked back later that day.

I think that is the manner in which they are anti-anti-Trump. You can report against Trump honestly. There is no need to exaggerate claims in order to do so.

The NRO is against fake news on uniformly against Hannity's thoroughly offensive and disgusting campaign regarding Seth Rich.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I think that the positions of NRO contributors can vary, but even the most pro-Trump sentiment is limited to positions like: the travel ban may not be unconstitutional, but it's still stupid. They are very pro-Ben Sasse, which is an anti-Trump as you can get from the right, conceptually. At the inauguration, most were Trump skeptics, determined to praise or criticize when warranted, and that the criticism makes the case for the validity of any praise and vice versa. But the sense has been that Trump has delivered nothing from a policy perspective, and that his self inflicted wounds make actually pushing through any elements of a conservative agenda virtually impossible. "But Gorsuch!" isn't enough as he hasn't done anything on the SC yet and could turn out to be a Souter. And if Obama is thought so little of, "But Obama!" is not the minimum standard by which a Republican president should be judged. I think NRO qualifies generally as "anti-Trump".

On the other hand, there is a strong sense that the MSM does have a liberal bias. That is nothing new, and it doesn't keep Republicans from being elected, but the rage over Bush and Romney was turned up to 10, so now some in the media's heads are exploding and that the coverage by mainstream press is over the edge. The same people who were "meh" over the James Rosen story freak out about Trump's attacks on the media. WaPo has had to walk back outlandish claims in several stories. Too many to count really, but see Comey asking for funding right before he got fired, Rosenstein's supposed resignation, and the State Dept. mass walk out (when their resignations were accepted). Or the story today about the Saudi/UAE donations to Ivanka's charity, which turned out the be the World Bank. Many people now inherently mistrust the media (though more people still trust them than Trump), but it is in some ways, why we have Trump now. It's not to say Trump doesn't suck, because he indisputably does, but there's no need to lie or play into his "fake news" hand by putting out a story that is walked back later that day.

I think that is the manner in which they are anti-anti-Trump. You can report against Trump honestly. There is no need to exaggerate claims in order to do so.

The NRO is against fake news on uniformly against Hannity's thoroughly offensive and disgusting campaign regarding Seth Rich.

I just went to the NRO front page and opened up something that looked stupid and, lo and behold, it was even stupider than imagined: http://www.nationalreview.com/nation...pring-webathon There is some looney stuff there.

Looks, that doesn't mean I won't go back and read the Eliot Abrams piece, because he has some interesting things to say.

As to "MSM" bias: the media is all over the place, and how Fox "News" is viewed as non-mainstream is beyond me, and there is no more biases bunch of hacks. Some are open about biases, some arean't. But my view on the constant "the media is out to get us" whining from the right is: Raspberries.

Actually, I expect a number of Fox news personalities to become much more interesting once they are freed from the editorial requirements of Fox (e.g., endless kissing of the old white male asses of Republican leadership). It happened to Greta, it'll probably happen to Megan.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

As to "MSM" bias: the media is all over the place, and how Fox "News" is viewed as non-mainstream is beyond me, and there is no more biases bunch of hacks. Some are open about biases, some arean't. But my view on the constant "the media is out to get us" whining from the right is: Raspberries.

I have more sympathy for the conservative position here than you do, and would encourage anyone who cares enough to agree or disagree with GGG to read this long post at Slate Star Codex.

[Hank Chinaski]

So has anyone read the NC opinion? Is this the death of Gerrymandering, or was NC bad on some other level?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I think that the positions of NRO contributors can vary, but even the most pro-Trump sentiment is limited to positions like: the travel ban may not be unconstitutional, but it's still stupid.

NRO's gripes with Trump through the election seemed to be that he was not really a Republican, and that he was dumb. They appear wrong on the first, as he's been a right winger so far, but quite right on the second.

They are very pro-Ben Sasse, which is an anti-Trump as you can get from the right, conceptually.

Self-important purer-than-thou asshole. But I digress...

At the inauguration, most were Trump skeptics, determined to praise or criticize when warranted, and that the criticism makes the case for the validity of any praise and vice versa. But the sense has been that Trump has delivered nothing from a policy perspective, and that his self inflicted wounds make actually pushing through any elements of a conservative agenda virtually impossible. "But Gorsuch!" isn't enough as he hasn't done anything on the SC yet and could turn out to be a Souter. And if Obama is thought so little of, "But Obama!" is not the minimum standard by which a Republican president should be judged. I think NRO qualifies generally as "anti-Trump".

NRO venerates relics like Art Laffer, trotting out tired theories. Trump's incompetence is fucking up their latest attempt to push through massive tax cuts.

Buckley had a compass, but today, that magazine stands for little more than griping about a lack of civility in culture (a la Peggy Noonan) and offering intellectual cover for tax cuts.

On the other hand, there is a strong sense that the MSM does have a liberal bias.

It does. We can debate why, but in aggregate, far more lean left than right. I suspect that's because the left perspective allows for a broader audience.

That is nothing new, and it doesn't keep Republicans from being elected, but the rage over Bush and Romney was turned up to 10, so now some in the media's heads are exploding and that the coverage by mainstream press is over the edge.

This is not relegated solely to the media. I know a ton of people for whom the calculation is, "Anything other than 100% repudiation of Trump, and the desire to see him removed from office as soon as possible, is unacceptable."
The same thing applied to Bush and Obama, however. The right wing's heads were exploding about Obama from the day the ACA went through until the day he left office. I think you just hear more anger now because Trump stoked a lot of it in order to create division, and the media reports on him more than any other President I recall.

The same people who were "meh" over the James Rosen story freak out about Trump's attacks on the media. WaPo has had to walk back outlandish claims in several stories. Too many to count really, but see Comey asking for funding right before he got fired, Rosenstein's supposed resignation, and the State Dept. mass walk out (when their resignations were accepted). Or the story today about the Saudi/UAE donations to Ivanka's charity, which turned out the be the World Bank. Many people now inherently mistrust the media (though more people still trust them than Trump), but it is in some ways, why we have Trump now. It's not to say Trump doesn't suck, because he indisputably does, but there's no need to lie or play into his "fake news" hand by putting out a story that is walked back later that day.

Bezos doesn't care. WaPo is his hit piece machine, and it's war.

The NRO is against fake news on uniformly against Hannity's thoroughly offensive and disgusting campaign regarding Seth Rich.

It may be against fake news, but it's not against bad data and debunked ideas. Embattled "job creators," "trickle down economics," unions as the cause of all of our economic ills, the case for "religious freedom"... This shit's pretty dusty stuff.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't always like Andrew Sullivan, but I think I am 100% with him on this:

This article, and others like it, overemphasize the importance of the President.

The forces causing the "civil war" are economic. Globalization, automation, wealth inequality... all the usual suspects. Trump isn't driving the country into a ditch (he actually hasn't done much of anything, as his efforts have been largely blocked).

Our cold civil war is a cultural thing, but it's the kind of cultural thing that rears its head pretty predictably during and following economic crises. Groups are scapegoated, demagogues appear -- everybody blames somebody else for their problems.

When people don't have good economic prospects, they lash out. Trump's a symptom. And Sullivan and his sort do a great disservice to the country by arguing that Trump is a unique problem that has plunged us into crisis.

Trump is what happens when a country diverts its gaze from a slow brewing, long term crisis in the making. We know the demographics. We know we can't paper over problems faced by the overwhelming majority of Americans. We've chosen a policy of pretending, avoiding, and outright lying where necessary to perpetuate the myth that everything's great for most people. Well, apparently, Andrew, that's not the case. Because when things are even just okay for most Americans, they do not vote for the likes of Trump.

Trump will be gone someday. The problems which led to his emergence will probably have only worsened in the meantime. And save on the environment, Hillary'd have fared no better in addressing any of them. They are beyond political fixes.

I'm kind of shocked someone as smart as Sullivan would attempt to argue the President's importance. In matters economic, he's simply not that powerful.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

but today, that magazine stands for little more ... offering pseudo-intellectual cover for tax cuts.

Fixed that for you.

I know a ton of people for whom the calculation is, "Anything other than 100% repudiation of Trump, and the desire to see him removed from office as soon as possible, is unacceptable."
The same thing applied to Bush and Obama, however.

I think often about whether the current outrage over Russia (and everything else) from everyone left of 45's 38% approval rating and whether it's the same as all the "scandals" Fox News pushed during the Obama era.

And I keep deciding it's not. First of all, no one but the rubes actually believed that stuff. Elected republicans, for the most part, didn't think Obama is a Muslim from Kenya. They did tend to portray that ACA as illegitimate, but I think they mostly knew that was for the sake of argument, not actually an offense to the process.

As far as I can tell, very little of the Russia stuff, or the Turkey stuff, at least as it's coming from inside Washington, is strategic (not commenting on Mensch conspiracy theories here). Comey, Yates and Brennan and the like aren't raising these questions to motivate a political base or push a political agenda.

It may be against fake news, but it's not against bad data and debunked ideas. Embattled "job creators," "trickle down economics," unions as the cause of all of our economic ills, the case for "religious freedom"... This shit's pretty dusty stuff.

One day yer all "I don't owe anyone empathy" and the next ya say stuff that makes me think we'll make a liberal out of you yet.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bezos doesn't care. WaPo is his hit piece machine, and it's war.

This is wrong in at least three ways, but it sounds good.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This article, and others like it, overemphasize the importance of the President.

The forces causing the "civil war" are economic. Globalization, automation, wealth inequality... all the usual suspects. Trump isn't driving the country into a ditch (he actually hasn't done much of anything, as his efforts have been largely blocked).

Our cold civil war is a cultural thing, but it's the kind of cultural thing that rears its head pretty predictably during and following economic crises. Groups are scapegoated, demagogues appear -- everybody blames somebody else for their problems.

When people don't have good economic prospects, they lash out. Trump's a symptom. And Sullivan and his sort do a great disservice to the country by arguing that Trump is a unique problem that has plunged us into crisis.

Trump is what happens when a country diverts its gaze from a slow brewing, long term crisis in the making. We know the demographics. We know we can't paper over problems faced by the overwhelming majority of Americans. We've chosen a policy of pretending, avoiding, and outright lying where necessary to perpetuate the myth that everything's great for most people. Well, apparently, Andrew, that's not the case. Because when things are even just okay for most Americans, they do not vote for the likes of Trump.

Trump will be gone someday. The problems which led to his emergence will probably have only worsened in the meantime. And save on the environment, Hillary'd have fared no better in addressing any of them. They are beyond political fixes.

I'm kind of shocked someone as smart as Sullivan would attempt to argue the President's importance. In matters economic, he's simply not that powerful.

I honestly can't figure out what, if anything, Sullivan said that you are responding to.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is wrong in at least three ways, but it sounds good.

I think I know why you're saying that. I'm unsure if you know why I'm saying what I'm saying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I honestly can't figure out what, if anything, Sullivan said that you are responding to.

Trump "must end" and is causing a crisis! Bullshit. Trump's what you get when you let a mess fester for so long it becomes putrid.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think I know why you're saying that. I'm unsure if you know why I'm saying what I'm saying.

I thought it was what you do. When a monkey throws its excrement through the bars of its cage, do we ask why?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Trump "must end" and is causing a crisis! Bullshit.

Since that's not what he said, your response was a non-sequitur. The closest thing to a thesis statement in it is: "That’s why I have a hard time figuring out how this ends, even though it must end." He's making a positive argument, not the normative one you heard.