Step #1: Discredit information sources and justice administrators as having conflicts of interest.

Step #2: Build up military and take a more personal involvement, solidifying his position as commander-in-chief.

Step #3: Use your imagination and draw your own conclusions.


Trump has often voiced criticisms of our Constitution, mainly that it RESTRICTED government's authority. . . . And here, I thought that was its purpose. Seems to me that he has aspirations of taking more PERSONAL control.

Americans are becoming increasingly more jaded and unresponsive to the prolific number of fact check allegations of mendacity. Many of these are questionable semantic accusations suggesting underlying implications, and many are, quite honestly, petty. . . . This sets the stage for allegations of a biased media, and Trump, playing the innocent victim on Twitter, is progressively gaining more credibility, especially from his "in crowd".


Increasingly, the president’s almost daily attacks seem to be delivering the desired effect, despite the manyexamples ofpowerful reporting on his presidency. By one measure, a CBS News poll over the summer, 91 percent of “strong Trump supporters” trust him to provide accurate information; 11 percent said the same about the news media.

Mr. Trump was open about the tactic in a 2016 conversation with Lesley Stahl of CBS News, which she shared earlier this year: “I do it to discredit you all and demean you all, so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you,” she quoted him as saying.

And with the president settling on “Fear and Falsehoods” as an election strategy, as The Washington Post put it last week, the political information system is awash in more misleading or flatly wrong assertions than reporters can keep up with. It’s as if President Trump has hit the journalism industry with a denial-of-service attack.

***************************************************************************************

I turned to an expert in rhetoric, David Zarefsky, professor emeritus at Northwestern University. Reporters must adjust themselves to someone who has thrown out the classical rules of debate, he said.

“Logic and argument is built upon a set of assumptions, and Trump largely rejects those assumptions,” he said. “One of those assumptions has to do with the importance of facts and the power of generally accepted beliefs.”

As he sees it, a common mistake reporters make is “holding onto conventional standards of judgment that he has just cast aside.”

In practical terms, then, journalists should ignore Mr. Trump’s tactic of using false narratives to divert their attention away from real crises, he said. But how long will it take the news media come up with a more effective way to counter the litany of baseless claims washing through the news cycle?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-news-media-are-working/ar-BBP00BK?li=BBnb7Kz

As we have learned on this forum how hard it is to debate those who make their own rules, discarding unwanted facts and endorsing fabricated evidence, yet garnering universal approval from other Trump fans . . . Partisanship is an effective means to circumvent logic.

 

Hilarious considering that Barack Obama routinely wiped his behind with the Constitution while leftists cheered. The rest of your screed have got equally vast logic holes.

 

Just another one of your typical OPINIONS, unsupported by fact or links, or even elaboration.

 

^ Some great points.

 

Thanks.

 

I see the media and social media via on line sites like Facebook, google, you tube, and twitter as controlling who can say what and what sources we can use. The media is a far bigger threat to the liberty of the American people than Trump ever could be. The so called media Fact checking sites are the fascist censors too many places use for content control of Christian and social conservative speech. MEDIA Bias Fact Checker is the worst of the worst when it comes to book burning nazi censors all based on the whims of its owner.

 

The media traditionally have had some very important functions in society which only they have been able to perform; namely, increasing public awareness and promoting social justice. They hold the key to our continuing freedom, which is effective widespread communication. As Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government."

Truth and transparency are essential to freedom, and when Trump challenges the credibility of the media, he is essentially attempting virtual censorship of not only falsehoods, but also facts. . . . Media is by definition the sum of ALL sources of information.

Although the media do have the freedom to selectively determine what material is suitable to be disseminated, they themselves do not have the authority to censor, except for site-imposed regulations on social media.

 

Site imposed content control is a slippery slope to fascism and censorship of another kind. Facebook, Twitter, Alphabet all need to be looked at in terms of the Sherman Anti Trust act.

 

Please explain how censorship could have ANYTHING to do with the Sherman Antitrust Act, and how social media could be involved. Is this another conspiracy theory???

 

He's halfway through his term, he better hurry it up if that's his plan.

Nobody believes the media anymore. Some overweight reality TV host didn't do this, they did this to themselves.

 

Partisan demand for radical political sensationalism is partly to blame, but ANY intelligent person would know not to make wagers on the veracity of information found in the National Enquirer. Keeping one's eyes closed at all times is not recommended for those with failing vision, just as you can't ignore all of the news because some may not be true.

 

Not at all. Facebook, Alphabet, and Twitter are all virtual monopolies in their areas and when they censor they affect others ability to exist financially or even appear at all.

 

I don't ignore news. I keep well apprised on media from all sides. Far left, far right, alt-lite, cable news, papers of record, YouTube on both sides, etc.

Too many people are afraid to even talk to those they disagree with.

 

The fact that members are critical of censorship should INVITE competition. Your argument doesn't make sense.

 

If NOBODY(and I'm assuming that includes you) believes the media anymore, are you watching it ONLY for entertainment???

 

It would in a normal competitive marketplace. Said competition is too difficult and expensive when one has a monopoly or near monopoly and those banking on the new competition from the start ups would have a very difficult time. That’s why these companies wanted net neutrality so that in exchange for government regulation they would become protected monopolies like utility companies. I say no net neutrality and bring on the trust busters!

 

So, you're saying that net neutrality is an indirect infringement on the First Amendment because government would protect monopolies rather than prohibit them???

Another conspiracy.

 

There is no argument ANYONE can credibly submit to dispute the fact that Trump is POWER-HUNGRY.

 

As far as you are concerned......

 

Well, can you offer an argument against my hypothesis that Trump is power-hungry with ANY credible evidence to the contrary??? I believe that I have offered sufficient justification to back my claim.

 

For me, the problem I would have in meeting your test centers on what you identified as Step #3.

Step #3: Use your imagination and draw your own conclusions.
​

That's not an argument. That's a rather vaporous empty statement.

If I'm to draw my own conclusions, how could they be wrong? It seems to me, with nothing to go on, you're simply making a claim, and if people don't agree, you're going to take exception.

A President, from any party, has significant power as provided by the Constitution. One might argue the use of those powers makes them power-hungry, but such powers are in writing, are they not? If those powers are granted the President, isn't it because it's expected he will use them?

It seems to me your looking for another argument to dislike the current President, and thought this might make a good case.

 

What politician isn't power hungry? Who would subject themselves to the BS politicians have to go through if they were not power hungry freaks?

 

Like or dislike has absolutely nothing to do with it. My worry is that he is not satisfied with the power and authority that the Constitution allows him to exercise, as he is constantly testing the limits and attacking the establishments meant to underwrite our freedom.

Step #3 allows LOGICAL individuals to consider the probable implications. . . . There are many on this forum that are capable of that.

 

You contradict yourself. . . . Power-hungry individuals ARE NOT willing to subject themselves to "BS". They crave complete authority and attempt to do away with red tape and protocol.

A President should be a public servant, not a narcissistic self-indulgent hedonist exploiting his position to satisfy his own cravings.

 

Someone once said...