|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 8, 2018 19:02:50 GMT -5
Bruce, all Russ said was word meanings vary over time, in various cultures, amid fluid world events, etc., which is true. I don't see any evidence of Russ saying that "nationalist" now equates to "racist." Actually, this is about Russell's defense of Don's defense of the CNN incident and the question about Trump being a Nationalist by which the reporter meant racist or fascist or some other demonic meaning of "Nationalist".
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 8, 2018 19:06:30 GMT -5
Bruce, you're shadow-boxing in the dark. You posted "Which is your opinion and justification for calling someone who believes that the U.S. is a great sovereign country a racist? Right?", followed by "You think 'Nationalist' means 'White Supremacist' because it fits your worldview."
Except I offered no such opinion. What I did point out is that it's possible to imply something beyond the dictionary definition of word. It's a common device to maintain deniability, to claim an innocent use of a word that has associations, overtones, context, a history. That can function as code or dog-whistle, a wink-and-nudge to an audience. And that is not Russell's opinion, it's a pretty well-established technique in propaganda and advertising (which are functionally pretty much the same thing).
It's a first cousin to the "hey, it's just a joke" defense that bullies and bigots use to fend off objections to obnoxious remarks. It's the old "certain parts of town" circumlocution--"You mean the black neighborhood?" "Hey, that's not what I said." Yeah, pull the other one.
But back to the original question--which I now address for the first time. Since neo-nazis and racists and anti-semites have taken to calling themselves "white nationalists," a public figure who calls himself a nationalist might reasonably be asked exactly what he means by that. And Trump doesn't have the kind of track record that makes that question an idle one.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Nov 8, 2018 19:06:47 GMT -5
Bruce, all Russ said was word meanings vary over time, in various cultures, amid fluid world events, etc., which is true. I don't see any evidence of Russ saying that "nationalist" now equates to "racist." Actually, this is about Russell's defense of Don's defense of the CNN incident and the question about Trump being a Nationalist by which the reporter meant racist or fascist or some other demonic meaning of "Nationalist". OK, sorry, I'm not finding that defense.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 8, 2018 19:30:08 GMT -5
Yeah, Russell, how about it? You going to step up to the plate, or what?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 8, 2018 19:51:17 GMT -5
"But back to the original question--which I now address for the first time. Since neo-nazis and racists and anti-semites have taken to calling themselves "white nationalists," a public figure who calls himself a nationalist might reasonably be asked exactly what he means by that. And Trump doesn't have the kind of track record that makes that question an idle one."
Once again, Russell states his opinion of Trump as if it was settled science. It's common for him to do that. He somehow believes that his understanding of words, because their meanings can be changed to suit him is superior to mere mortals such as myself. I simply disagree. Don's opinion that the question was a reasonable question for the reporter to ask and then Russell's agreement, because words can have different meanings, is in my opinion bogus because "Make America Great Again" and "America First" are merely nationalistic statements and Trump's meaning should initially be taken at face value of the words and not twisted into some sort of fascist conspiracy. Actually, expecting everyone to agree with one's re-definition of terms as Russell is prone to do, is more fascist than anything Trump has ever done.
I still think Acosta was being an asshole and the what did Trump mean calling himself a nationalist is just being an asshole. Those of us not on your side don't think Trump is the anti-christ incarnate and think that by treating him as such is just being an asshole. It's simple. YMWV. For clarity, the W is for "Will" sort of meaning like shall because it's a safe assumption.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 8, 2018 19:51:36 GMT -5
The reporter was asking Trump if when he said "Nationalist" was that the same as the White Nationalists. (or something to that effect). SHE made it a racist comment or wanted Trump to deny he was a racist and renounce white nationalist. That's where she was heading. His response was crass and stupid and reactionary. But it's clear to some people that by Nationalist, he means Bruce's classic definition.
But then we all know he's no dummy and likes to play both sides of the street when it serves his purpose. He chose the term becasue it suits his purpose. And if it revs up some unsavories in the process, then that suits his purpose too. Just don't expect he to take responsibility for their frothing fervor.
He says purposely inflammatory things, then blames others for taking them in the way he knows they will from the start. He's a master of deceit.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 8, 2018 19:55:23 GMT -5
"And if it revs up some unsavories in the process"
Like the ones that attacked Tucker Carlson's home yesterday? OH, Wait, they were liberals.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 8, 2018 19:58:22 GMT -5
Disregarding everything Trump (if that's possible), are there standards of behavior that the press is expected to follow and be accountable for?
I didn't see the press conference, just a clip of "the moment". Nonjudgmentaly, in that clip I saw a reporter ask Trump a question and then ask some follow up questions related to his original question. This question, answer, re-question, re-answer process proceeded for a little over a minute. Trump then ended the what by now appeared to an argument by asking for the next question from the next reporter. Acosta then spoke over Trump and tried ask a new question, one which was entirely unrelated to his first question. He then refused to give up the microphone, even when a White House page had been directed to take it from him and pass it on to the next reporter.
Again, disregarding Trump (if that's possible), did the reporter violate protocol? Are there any rules or expectations governing a reporter's behavior during a press conference? Such as a reporter gets one question with follow ups to that question, but not multiple unrelated questions? Are the reporters expected to take turns with the other reporters and pass the microphone on when asked? Is it the president's right to at some point end a persistence questioning that approaches open argument and say "next question"? If so, if the reporter refuses to give up the mic, even when a White House page asks for it, is that against the rules? If there are any rules, should they matter? If they do, are there or should there be consequences for ignoring them?
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 8, 2018 20:17:31 GMT -5
Disregarding everything Trump (if that's possible), are there standards of behavior that the press is expected to follow and be accountable for? I didn't see the press conference, just a clip of "the moment". Nonjudgmentaly, in that clip I saw a reporter ask Trump a question and then ask some follow up questions related to his original question. This question, answer, re-question, re-answer process proceeded for a little over a minute. Trump then ended the what by now appeared to an argument by asking for the next question from the next reporter. Acosta then spoke over Trump and tried ask a new question, one which was entirely unrelated to his first question. He then refused to give up the microphone, even when a White House page had been directed to take it from him and pass it on to the next reporter. Again, disregarding Trump (if that's possible), did the reporter violate protocol? Are there any rules or expectations governing a reporter's behavior during a press conference? Such as a reporter gets one question with follow ups to that question, but not multiple unrelated questions? Are the reporters expected to take turns with the other reporters and pass the microphone on when asked? Is it the president's right to at some point end a persistence questioning that approaches open argument and say "next question"? If so, if the reporter refuses to give up the mic, even when a White House page asks for it, is that against the rules? If there are any rules, should they matter? If they do, are there or should there be consequences for ignoring them? All fair questions. Since I haven't been in the business for a few years, I don't know if they have firm ground rules, but, judging from what I see at these things (including the used-to-be daily briefings), apparently not. It might be a good idea to come up with something to go by. In the meantime, as I sat watching this latest White House-media train wreck, even before they got to Acosta, I wondered if it wouldn't be a good idea, in such a contentious setting, for the press office to have some control over that mic, like being able to shut it off at will. That would have made Acosta mad, but the moment would have quickly passed unnoticed by the viewing audience, and we might have been saved all this trouble. At least for the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 8, 2018 20:25:24 GMT -5
Incidentally, this young woman is being identified as an intern, not a page. I'm guessing that if she had been considering a career in government, she might be rethinking it.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 8, 2018 20:25:38 GMT -5
I didn't see it and for all I know the reporter went over the appropriate limits. But I have qualms about letting a public official blackball a member of the press, even if that individual is being a jerk. Such acts can lead to self-censorship on the part of the press. The next reporter in line thinks, "I'd better soft-pedal my questions because if he bans me, I'll lose my job, we'll lose our house and soon I'll be holding up a sign at an intersection asking for help." Or something like that. We need a free and uninhibited press, and never more than now.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 8, 2018 20:32:27 GMT -5
Enough of the press has proven a willingness to bend the truth in their opposition to Republicans, and break it in pursuit of Trump. Numbness set in. We've come running to the cries of "WOLF!" too many times. We simply don't hear it anymore. For the first time in my life I cast a straight line party ballot for a party I don't believe in for the one simple reason: They are the victims of an out of control press, and they finally have one member who understands who the real opposition in Washington is. You can dismiss rants of GINs. You can cry "conspiracy theorists!" and dismiss what you wish. You can dive into a social-media, Google-made, personally tailored pool of bias confirmation.....and assume that is my motivation instead of hearing me and my kind. You can find all the worst thinkers and actors among your ideological opposition and presume them exemplary -- you don't even have to look for them, the press will have them on the nightly news at 6 pee em daily for all to see. You might even be right. I might be wrong, but I am not alone. You have a lot of company, and yes, you are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 8, 2018 20:39:24 GMT -5
The exchange with Yamiche Alcindor -
Q Hi, Mr. President. Yamiche Alcindor with PBS NewsHour. On the campaign trail, you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists. Now people are also saying —
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know why you’d say that. That’s such a racist question.
Q There are some people that say that now the Republican Party is seen as supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you make of that?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I don’t believe that. I don’t believe that.
I don’t believe — well, I don’t know. Why do I have my highest poll numbers ever with African Americans? Why do I have among the highest poll numbers with African Americans? I mean, why do I have my highest poll numbers? That’s such a racist question.
Honestly, I mean, I know you have it written down, and you’re going to tell me. Let me tell you: It’s a racist question.
Q And Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: I love — and you know what the word is? I love our country. I do. You call — you have nationalists. You have globalists. I also love the world and I don’t mind helping the world, but we have to straighten out our country first. We have a lot of problems.
Q And —
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. But to say that — what you said is so insulting to me. It’s a very terrible thing that you said.
Q And Mr. President — Mr. President, people have —
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Please, go ahead. Go ahead.
Q You’ve talked about —
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me.
Q You talked about middle-class tax cuts on the campaign trail. How will you get Democrats to support that policy?
THE PRESIDENT: You have to ask them.
Q Well, what’s your plan for working with Democrats —
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me.
Q — on the middle-class tax plan?
THE PRESIDENT: You know what my plan is? You know what my plan is? I’ll ask them. And if they say yes, I’m all for it. And if they say no, there’s nothing you can do because you need their votes.
The exchange with Acosta was a bit longer. You will probably have seen the original video or the one that was doctored by conspiracy theorist and loony website, Infowars, that the Whitehouse preferred people to see.
Edit - obviously that was bullshit from Trump about his surging popularity with African-Americans. You knew that though.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 8, 2018 20:57:36 GMT -5
I find it difficult to understand how anyone who has been conservative or Republican for more than a few years, cannot abandon their party and start anew. During those years, did they not believe in what the Reoublican party campaigned on? Small government, fiscal responsibility, family values, the rule of law, respect for the constitution? Conservatism? Can they not see that their party’s leadership has abandoned every one of those values to consolidate power under a corrupt leader who makes a mockery of every one of them? I know a third party would not be a big election-winning proposition at the moment, but is winning really more important than everything else? Is beating the damn liberals more important than you core values? Than your soul? If so, then you’ve fucked up. You took 1000 statehouse seats away from the Democrats in the last decade. You just gave a third of them back in a day. Standing behind Trump isn’t working for you.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 8, 2018 21:58:58 GMT -5
I find it difficult to understand how anyone who has been conservative or Republican for more than a few years, cannot abandon their party and start anew. During those years, did they not believe in what the Reoublican party campaigned on? Small government, fiscal responsibility, family values, the rule of law, respect for the constitution? Conservatism? Can they not see that their party’s leadership has abandoned every one of those values to consolidate power under a corrupt leader who makes a mockery of every one of them? I know a third party would not be a big election-winning proposition at the moment, but is winning really more important than everything else? Is beating the damn liberals more important than you core values? Than your soul? If so, then you’ve fucked up. You took 1000 statehouse seats away from the Democrats in the last decade. You just gave a third of them back in a day. Standing behind Trump isn’t working for you. A damn liberal lecturing me on why I don't become a damn liberal. Oh, the irony.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 9, 2018 5:30:08 GMT -5
The reporter was asking Trump if when he said "Nationalist" was that the same as the White Nationalists. (or something to that effect). SHE made it a racist comment or wanted Trump to deny he was a racist and renounce white nationalist. That's where she was heading. His response was crass and stupid and reactionary. But it's clear to some people that by Nationalist, he means Bruce's classic definition. I read the transcript. She wasn't asking for clarification because when he gave it, it didn't matter. Her barrage didn't stop. It simply is not possible to adequately or successfully address the GIN. It is the question begged. The press gets to decide what "Nationalist" means. And if the press decides there is no difference between nationalism and "White Nationalist", there is no difference. I wonder if Alcindor sees a difference between "American" and "African-American". And from the start Acosta wasn't asking any questions. He was pontificating. Listen to Acosta's opening remark "I would like to challenge you, Mr President"
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 9, 2018 6:10:54 GMT -5
I find it difficult to understand how anyone who has been conservative or Republican for more than a few years, cannot abandon their party and start anew. "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." Maybe it escaped your attention in your absence, but neither Peter, nor Jeff, nor I voted for Trump. We "abandoned" the Republican Party....though I doubt any of us saw it as "our team" in the first place. It's been pointed out several times that no matter how many distinctive differences the individuals here have with their apparent party of choice, it has been only those of us on the right who have made such breaks. The Democrats here are Democrats....even in the face of a party that is now electing openly Socialist politicians. So, yeah, we'll "start anew". How does that work? ...do we suddenly get new candidates to vote for? I'm the one who was insisting that, "No, not voting is not voting for the opposition." I'm the one who was insisting that when the country continues to vote for the two candidates offered, we never get anything better. I was scoffed at by the Democrats here. Those who call ME the "cute, naive, binary, Manichean thinker." All the while the Democrats play team ball. No matter the candidate, the game is understood: Politics is a party pursuit. During those years, did they not believe in what the Reoublican party campaigned on? Small government, fiscal responsibility, family values, the rule of law, respect for the constitution? Conservatism? Can they not see that their party’s leadership has abandoned every one of those values to consolidate power under a corrupt leader who makes a mockery of every one of them? I know a third party would not be a big election-winning proposition at the moment, but is winning really more important than everything else? see above Is beating the damn liberals more important than you core values? Is this a trick question? I don't refer to them as "damn liberals", but your question is nonsensical. Defeating the core tenets of liberalism IS a core value. So, yes, defeating them is important. I don't favor their core value of Socialism. I don't favor their core value of welfare state. I don't favor their core value of abortion on demand. I don't favor their core value of a federal government paying for abortions. I don't believe in their core value of central planning for the economy. I don't believe in their core value of undoing the Bill of Rights and legislating through the executive and judicial branches. I do believe that liberal policies are rapidly destroying our country. So, yes, defeating liberalism is a core value. I don't get to pick the candidates by which my values are reflected. I have to vote for who's on the ballot. But as a conservative, I'll have to judge on results, not intentions, and leave it to liberals to keep voting for the ones who intentions they like, but whose results don't match up.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 9, 2018 7:06:10 GMT -5
I find it difficult to understand how anyone who has been conservative or Republican for more than a few years, cannot abandon their party and start anew. During those years, did they not believe in what the Reoublican party campaigned on? Small government, fiscal responsibility, family values, the rule of law, respect for the constitution? Conservatism? Can they not see that their party’s leadership has abandoned every one of those values to consolidate power under a corrupt leader who makes a mockery of every one of them? I know a third party would not be a big election-winning proposition at the moment, but is winning really more important than everything else? Is beating the damn liberals more important than you core values? Than your soul? If so, then you’ve fucked up. You took 1000 statehouse seats away from the Democrats in the last decade. You just gave a third of them back in a day. Standing behind Trump isn’t working for you. A damn liberal lecturing me on why I don't become a damn liberal. Oh, the irony. I’m not suggesting you become a liberal, or even a centrist Democrat. I actually was asking a question: Are you a conservative? Do you believe in the consevative values the Republican Party has campaigned on for decades? Then how can you stand behind this administration?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 9, 2018 7:10:30 GMT -5
Donald Trump got thousands of leftists to take to the streets in New York in support of Jeff Sessions.
Tell me he isn't magic.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 9, 2018 7:34:23 GMT -5
I find it difficult to understand how anyone who has been conservative or Republican for more than a few years, cannot abandon their party and start anew. "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." Maybe it escaped your attention in your absence, but neither Peter, nor Jeff, nor I voted for Trump. We "abandoned" the Republican Party....though I doubt any of us saw it as "our team" in the first place. It's been pointed out several times that no matter how many distinctive differences the individuals here have with their apparent party of choice, it has been only those of us on the right who have made such breaks. The Democrats here are Democrats....even in the face of a party that is now electing openly Socialist politicians. So, yeah, we'll "start anew". How does that work? ...do we suddenly get new candidates to vote for? I'm the one who was insisting that, "No, not voting is not voting for the opposition." I'm the one who was insisting that when the country continues to vote for the two candidates offered, we never get anything better. I was scoffed at by the Democrats here. Those who call ME the "cute, naive, binary, Manichean thinker." All the while the Democrats play team ball. No matter the candidate, the game is understood: Politics is a party pursuit. During those years, did they not believe in what the Reoublican party campaigned on? Small government, fiscal responsibility, family values, the rule of law, respect for the constitution? Conservatism? Can they not see that their party’s leadership has abandoned every one of those values to consolidate power under a corrupt leader who makes a mockery of every one of them? I know a third party would not be a big election-winning proposition at the moment, but is winning really more important than everything else? see above Is beating the damn liberals more important than you core values? Is this a trick question? I don't refer to them as "damn liberals", but your question is nonsensical. Defeating the core tenets of liberalism IS a core value. So, yes, defeating them is important. I don't favor their core value of Socialism. I don't favor their core value of welfare state. I don't favor their core value of abortion on demand. I don't favor their core value of a federal government paying for abortions. I don't believe in their core value of central planning for the economy. I don't believe in their core value of undoing the Bill of Rights and legislating through the executive and judicial branches. I do believe that liberal policies are rapidly destroying our country. So, yes, defeating liberalism is a core value. I don't get to pick the candidates by which my values are reflected. I have to vote for who's on the ballot. But as a conservative, I'll have to judge on results, not intentions, and leave it to liberals to keep voting for the ones who intentions they like, but whose results don't match up. I do remember you saying that you didn’t vote for Trump. Good for you. But my post isn’t about you, it’s about the Republican party, and the fact that they have abandoned everything they stood for to consolidate power behind Trump. It’s about conservatives and the fact that now that the GOP has become Trump’s party, they no longer have a party that represents them, yet GOP politicians who identified as conservatives, rather than abandoning their party and starting one that reflects their beliefs, have fallen in line behind a man who does not. It’s about the results - nearly daily assaults by executive order and bully pulpit on liberty, law, family values and the constitution, and a massive legislative assault on fiscal responsibility. I think we are way past the time for a powerful third and fourth party in this country. Let the radicals on both sides have their own nasty little pig pens to play in. Let the center right and center left get back to the business of running the country. And John, you’re a smart guy. I know you know what socialism is.
|
|