And my golf hat, can't forget that...

A lot of that didn't really make a lot of sense to me and I'm not even sure of what you're talking about. I'm presuming myself but like I say, nfi what you're on.

The general media or 6pm news always tries to play it safe and portrays what the public think or expect. Only on some more controversial forms such as talkback do you get something a bit more raw.

I don't deny Trump is a gimp but he will forever be portrayed by the media in the worst light and oh boy does he deserve it.

Point is, nothing positive he does (should that be possible) will ever be reported as such. There will always be a negative angle to everything. Not at least until his run is over.

Yeah you know what, ignore me, I spent 4 studying / researching and then 3 years teaching this sort of stuff. I could write pages on it but no one is actually interested in how to think about news media, just if they can float their own hot take.

I will say that you should revisit your claims about Bush because there's tens of thousands of pages written on how the media literally fell over themselves to avoid criticising Bush after 9/11. To be blunt what you stated is demonstrably untrue.

Trump does nothing to help his cause though by continually bleating "wah, wah, the biased media are picking on me! I'm declaring war on the media!"

Really? No one is interested? ;)

I don't think MM wants to ignore you, you're just much deeper into how to think and talk about this kinda stuff than us scrubs. Sometimes we get lost along the way.

so, could you say that they went from portraying him as a monkey to something else post 9/11? I'm welcome to an education. Noone is doubting your knowledge on the matter.

how about i correct my previous post?

I distinctly remember a change in how he was put on the screen. Never before had he been shown to be making jokes especially.

First google offering for a search 'president bush after' http://nypost.com/2017/01/28/after-y...t-he-deserves/ (I don't necessarily agree with that headline in this article, but certainly the gist of the content)

Anyway, a quick run through of Trump's first week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZkopd9m1lw

Look I just don't know where you're getting this idea that all media portrayed Bush as a chump - pretty certain a number of major news networks were very supportive of him (like, Fox at least, perhaps?).

http://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/
This is a very simple article that outlines specifically how the US media collapsed and basically kowtowed to US government and advertising industries.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
I'd also recommend watching Buying the War (Bill Moyers) which is a available free online.

And herein lies the problem. You've been making gross generalisations about how all media behave based on a mentally small sample size blurred by a decade or more and skewed to whatever biases you happen to have.

Haha well of course that's to be expected of Fox News.

Case in point: http://fox-channel.com/trump-fires-u...rrupt-senator/

Never mind that he has actually fired ALL US ambassadors, but can't report that 'cause in Fox News land, that'll make Trump look bad.

While Iran and Iraq are considering reciprocating the immigration ban, airports and the streets are full of protesters, the Trump family sit down to a screening of Finding Dory.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...mmigration-ban

Maybe he thinks he is watching the live feed showing the repercussions of his actions.

Starting to suspect that Trump is in the early stages of dementia and is being led around by the nose by his neo-Nazi courtiers.

Don't know why people are surprised this is happening...the temp refugee ban certainly was one of his election promises...

True, people are incensed by the news feeds. I wonder if you replaced Trump with Obama in these news stories would people still be outraged by every single news event.

On the flip side to Trump following through with his promises, people are fighting him every step of the way, like they said they would. To me, the action and reaction is very encouraging. If the establishment crumbles, and is rebuilt better and more democratically post-Trump, then we really should be thanking him for being brave enough to set the torch to the whole mess and thus turning slacktivism into in-your-face action.

Another positive: his actions are making people around the world turn to their leaders and see how they react to US events, whether they approve or disapprove. So far Malcolm Turnbull is a little disappointing as he shows support for the immigration ban, as is Bill English and his silence.

Let's read the horoscopes to interpret English's response to date.

Ooh please issue a warrant for Trump's arrest!

Be Careful What You Wish For (especially if it is Hitler)

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1565403...ially-if-it-is

Being outraged as an automatic reaction cant be a good thing. Here's why.

Reading:
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/tr...1d5#.cd4xzwm5e

Scot Adams is a worthless piece of shit posing as a human being. HTH.

wow, I had no idea. Damn

If these Executive Orders can pushed through essentially unchecked (because who would challenge them), how is that not a dictatorship?

Did you even read Ab's link?

AG (Obummer appointed) takes a stand against Trump, 4 hours later fired. Talk about Martyrdom

Yeah, first real martyr for Trump's opposition. It will be interesting to see how she responds, what she musters up.

I'm not sure it answers my question? I don't understand or know much of American law at all ... to me that article is about Trump not following a court order, rather than the other way around of Trump issuing order after order essentially unchecked. .

The point of the article is that the Federal Court is a check on Trump's power, one that may very well soon be tested.

If the Court fails this test, then indeed, Trump will have significantly more power. But still, there's the GOP, the Dept. of Justice and probably other more subtle checks on the power of Trump and his cronies.

It should have.


Have you tried googling a few basic things?

I'm not too sure what you mean by 'unchecked', at least as it relates to executive orders. Maybe if you clarified what your concern is with regards to executive orders, people might be able to answer your question.

The concern is that Trump can just throw shit out there with effectively no control. If one guy can make the rules and fuck you over if you don't agree with them, to me that makes a dictatorship.

Yeah, I google which pretty much agrees with what I'm saying. https://qz.com/897674/congressional-...-dictatorship/

At those positions, to disagree with Trump would be career suicide.

Executive Orders are not "unchecked" or "with effectively no control". The link you provided explains that.

Tell me: is it the concept of Executive Orders you disagree with? Or specifically Trump's Executive Orders?

thought of the day: What if all these "Rogue" twitter accounts are planted by Trump team to convince the slacktivists that the public servants are fighting back against the administration, so the rest of the people don't have to. What if it's just another thing that spreads our attention span extra thin.

in Starcraft you would call that an APM sink.

This pretty much sums up my frustration with your earlier comments Max. Your total lack of willingness to put any sort of effort into just fucking looking into the basics of something.

You complained that you didn't understand stuff in my original bollocking of you and yet it was structured in such a way that you could easily double click a word, right click and search in google and... or is pressing some buttons and reading some shit setting the bar to high?

Oh and this too - fuzzy wuzzy arguments where you don't actually specify what the fuck you're talking about. Then when people call you on it you complain that you -

I disagree with the situation that has arisen where despite some apparent checks in place there's no democracy.

I fail to see how there's no democracy.

Read some literature in the field then. The view that what we have fails to be worthy of the name 'democracy' is not uncommon.

Wow, this is better than any political drama.

U.S. President Donald Trump fired top federal government lawyer Sally Yates on Monday after she took the extraordinarily rare step of defying the White House and refused to defend new travel restrictions targeting seven Muslim-majority nations.

Got that? Then watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfcl0w0vvXo

For those not aware of context: This video is from 2015. It is Sally Yates' confirmation hearing for Deputy Attorney General. The person interviewing her is Jeff Sessions. Sessions is currently Trumps' nomination for Attorney General. If confirmed by Senate vote on Tuesday, he will take the position she was just fired from tonight, for doing exactly what she describes in the video, defying a Presidents' orders because she wasn't convinced they were legal.