Do you think former Pres. Trump is being covered too positively or not enough? Do you think they are covering for him purposefully or with ill intent?
He is, as far as I can tell, the central figure in US media (rivaled only by Taylor Swift, maybe). Nearly every policy discussion is made relative to his position, his actions, or his reaction.
His coverage is overwhelmingly negative. Surely the most negative in presidential politics history. With less than 4% of reporters identifying as Republicans I'm not sure the idea he is being covered too positively makes sense.
I do not argue that his positions, his statements, should be reported clearly to the electorate. The special counsel report, followed by an ill-advised press conference, garnered significant attention, as it should.
First I think your assessment of the coverage ignores the change in right wing media. There is very little criticism of him on Fox and none at all on the outlets to the right of them.
Second, mush of the coverage is of the horse race variety and very little of policies they are proposing to enact and the likely resulting outcomes.
proposed NATO "policy" of letting Russia do whatever it wants in Europe.
It's policy based, and highlights Trump's insanity. Not horse-race stuff.
I can't speak to what is being said on air on any of these channels, because I don't watch TV news.
difficulty in covering the Congress and Campaigns.
I think most of us posting here woudl agree the Republicans killed the bipartisan border deal. To be more specific I would say House Republicans and then Senate Republicans joined in once they knew it was not going anywhere in the House. The WH and Senate Dems agreed to a bil Republican Senators described as better than what they hoped for and better than what they could get under Trump most glaringly no solution for dreamers.
Trump was not subtle in his efforts to kill the bill. Republicans did not hide the fact they were doing this at Trump's direction to benefit his campaign. So who does America blame?
Americans find there is blame to go around on Congress’ failure to pass legislation intended to decrease the number of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border—with about the same number blaming the Republicans in Congress (53%), the Democrats (51%) and Biden (49%). Fewer, 39%, blame Trump.
seen a number of pieces on the topic will see if I can find one and post it.
I do think this one is so far outside the bounds of normalcy it is getting traction.
Senator and Congressman on whether they agree with Trump. It is a simple yes or no question. And since the Republican platform is whatever Trump says, do they support this policy as a plank in their platform.
No one should be let off the hook.
So far I’ve only seen Rubio debasing himself trying to sidestep it.
Where does Lindsey Graham stand on this?
From the linked article in The Atlantic:
"How Trump and his advisers intend to staff such a program would make a prospective Trump deportation campaign even more volatile. Stephen Miller, Trump’s top immigration adviser, has publicly declared that they would pursue such an enormous effort partly by creating a private red-state army under the president’s command. Miller says a reelected Trump intends to requisition National Guard troops from sympathetic Republican-controlled states and then deploy them into Democratic-run states whose governors refuse to cooperate with their deportation drive.
Such deployment of red-state forces into blue states, over the objections of their mayors and governors, would likely spark intense public protest and possibly even conflict with law-enforcement agencies under local control. And that conflict itself could become the justification for further insertion of federal forces into blue jurisdictions, notes Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the Liberty & National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School."
It's almost as if he wants domestic violence. Why would that be, I wonder.
Until he gets his own such org up and running.
speeches, which I think is a poor strategy if you want your audience to know what he's saying. Sure they'll occasionally pick out snippets to tear apart, but it doesn't have the same impact when you pull in partisans to attack small sections of a larger speech. Let people see for themselves the state he's in and the things he says in full, then do your analysis. Most of the time his performances and speeches speak for themselves and you won't even need that analysis.
Who out there will have their opinion of Trump change if they see him saying live that Russia should attack NATO countries? MAGA minds are wired to believe and accept everything Trump says as the gospel. Much like he said he'd lose no support if he shot someone dead in the street, he could actually start spouting lines out the playbook of the most progressive democrats and his poll numbers would not get worse, in fact they'd probably get better.
His performances and speeches DO speak for themselves, and that has been the issue for the last 8 years now. Trump simply was the successful candidate who tapped into where nearly half of the voters are, and instead of shrinking away when he said literally thousands of outrageous things, he leaned in. He was the first candidate in a long, long time to correctly read the mood of half the country.
This isn't a Trump problem. It is a "your neighbor" problem. Trump is what they want.
Trump's gaffes and crazy things he's saying. My response is that multiple media outlets are not showing his victory speeches or speeches in general. Not that they have to cover all of his speeches or the entire thing, but showing quick snippets doesn't really give anyone the full picture. If you want the media to cover Trump, start with his words and analyze from there, rather than just a random snippet here and there. That outlets like CNN and MSNBC feel like they know best about what should or should not be viewed by the public doesn't solve the problem of why it's not getting more coverage.
For saying he would encourage Russia to attack a NATO country.
"'The president of a big country stood up and said "if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?" I said you didn't pay, you're delinquent? He said, "yes, let's say that happened".
'No, I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want, you gotta pay! You gotta pay your bills.'"
Between this and Tucker, Putin won't need viagra for months.
Trump is f'ing deranged. And Biden is all we have standing between us and authoritarianism & WW3.
Happy Sunday!
…or maybe his handlers are too selfish and vain.
Either way, we have fooked ourselves, and our political class has facilitated this in spectacular fashion.
I blame social media and commercial culture just a little bit too.
They feel death all around them, I expect. They find it so hard to admit they aren't essential. Ruth Bader Ginsburg waited too long and was rewarded with the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Feinstein!? McConnell's freezes. Grassley running for something like his fifth term? Props to Mitt Romney for leaving when he did.
Biden should have taken Cincinnatus as a model: he had an unexpected opportunity to do something really positive by sparing us a second Trump term -- and succeeded. I think history is going to be kind to him -- a guy who never came close otherwise to a nomination, despite repeated efforts. Then a door surprisingly opened. But he and too many Democrats misread the moment -- remember the absurd FDR aspirations? And Democratic fixation on identity politics -- not to mention the extraordinary and understandable popular outrage at George Floyd's killing -- led to nominating the hapless Harris, who, like her boss, was an even worse presidential candidate.
That Democrats run a slew of ads with quotes like this asking Americans if this is what they really want, and end with every GOP Rep/Senator quoting that they stand with Trump or show a picture of them standing together. The only way MAGA goes away for sure is a blue wave. While I know it’s unlikely I continue to hope it happens.
Summer, once he’s the nominee is the time to start. Doing so now wastes the message getting stale while their effect is pointless. Nothing is changing the outcome of the primaries. The best thing however, is those ads will be irrefutable, as it’s clear all GOP pols refuse to condemn a commandment from The Great One, for fear he will attack them.
Get people talking about every chance they get, such as on the Sunday morning shows. Get those ads prepared. Let people know that not voting could lead to this. Because the people who need to get the message are the people thinking “I’m not gonna vote for either of the old guys”. Well, the choice is between an old guy and a cult-leading mob boss who wants to do exactly what he says.
I know some on here don't like her (I do) but she's spot on.
The SOTU. Lead into a line and say NATO is not a protection racket. Real men don't grab women by the pussy. We can rest assured we have leadership who reads and understands briefing material and doesn't throw hamburgers at the wall. The silence on one half of the aisle will be deafening.
I also think that this level of craziness is going to turn Romney and some old GOP pols who've kept their powder dry into Biden surrogates. I guess we'll see if that's enough in November.