Trump's remarks | Imamother

↑ marina ↓

Fri, Aug 25 2017, 4:11 pm

Fox wrote:

I don't actually believe that most journalists are unpatriotic, evil, etc. But many people have become incredibly disturbed by how far purportedly "objective" media have slid into advocacy journalism. Some, like Christiane Amanpour, are completely upfront about it. Others, like Don Lemon, don't even realize that they are practicing advocacy journalism (watch his recent conversation with Ben Shapiro).

But most journalists and media outlets aren't even open to the discussion of the role of bias or whether journalistic ethics need attention. They act insulted that anyone would point out even mild shortcomings.

Public concern is not rooted simply in media responses to Trump. The Gawker case; the Rolling Stone case; the rehabilitation of Brian Williams; Dan Rather's fall from grace; and the anti-Israel bias of outlets like NYT have eroded the public's confidence in the motivations of those who report the news for decades.

Can you share your opinion on Breitbart as a media outlet? How displeased are you, on a scale of 1-100 that Breitbart is essentially a government-sponsored media outlet of this administration? Are there many Trump supporters unhappy about Breitbart's biases and the erosion of the public's confidence in their journalists' motivation?

Or do you not even consider Breitbart to be a legitimate media source worthy of our consideration?

↑ Fox ↓

Fri, Aug 25 2017, 4:26 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

We live in a topsy turvy world if people actually think that Trump is trying to create a free press, and that liberals (and mainstream Republicans) are trying to limit free speech.

Trump has removed or barred reporters from his rallies, and from briefings.

Trump posts, then deletes posts, possibly in violations of laws relating to preservation of presidential communications.

Trump has threatened to change defamation laws that protect the press in reporting on public figures such as himself.

Trump has referred to the free press as "the enemy of the American people." Not to mention his consistent attacks on anything he disagrees with as "fake news" or "failing" media.

He barred the US, but not Russian, press from a meeting.

Trump does not represent a free press.

Who said anything about a free press? A free press is an extension of free speech -- not its apotheosis.

As I said, I don't agree with Trump's constant baiting of the media, but given their incredible mendacity and disrespect (e.g., CNN "reporting" on the idea that all Trump voters are de facto white supremacists) for the American public, they're hardly occupying the moral high ground.

Nor can I imagine any interpretation in which the left stands in favor of free speech. Just this week, Berkeley just extorted $15K from YAF in order to allow Ben Shapiro to speak, and the ticketing process "isn't working" for some unexplained reason.

We've also witnessed a long procession of leftists during the past week arguing across a variety of platforms that "hate speech" is not protected. Of course, they would like to reserve the right to define "hate speech."

The fact that the issues I raised upthread are met with mockery is indicative of how little the left thinks about freedom of speech. These are all serious issues that are being explored by people far more intelligent and knowledgable than I. These aren't things I pulled out from under my shaitel. There are questions of employers' rights; the rights of private Internet providers; the role of social media as a utility . . . yet these issues are reduced to a joke because Alex Jones says crazy stuff. Well, so does Maxine Waters. At least the taxpayers don't have to subsidize Alex Jones's nonsense.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Fri, Aug 25 2017, 4:43 pm

Fox wrote:

You think Damore would have gone public without the empowerment of conservatives/libertarians? I don't. I don't think he would have written his memo, and if he had, he would have retracted it immediately.

You do not like the fact that nutcases are also empowered along with Harvard biologists. I'm okay choosing not to listen to Jones but choosing to actually read Damore and people like Charles Murray.

I read pretty thoroughly across the conservative world, and I have not yet seen any longtime conservative thought leaders claim that Trump was a Nazi sympathizer, as you did.

I guess you don't read the Weekly Standard. Let's take a look:

Quote:

There’s a reason why it was necessary for President Donald Trump to denounce specifically and unequivocally the white nationalists whose demonstration last weekend in Virginia became violent—not the “many sides” who were also protesting, or violence in general. It’s true there were left-wing counter-protesters who were also violent and antagonistic in Charlottesville. It’s true that political violence is wrong, no matter who perpetuates it. It’s true that the poisonous culture did not begin with Donald Trump’s entry into national politics.

But this is also true: White nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and other racist groups who marched through the University of Virginia’s campus and in Charlottesville last weekend did so because they have been empowered by the presidency of Donald Trump. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the photos of those wearing “Make America Great Again” hats in Charlottesville. Listen to the words of arch-racist David Duke, who said his goal in attending the Charlottesville event was to “fulfill the promises of Donald Trump.” Remember that one of the rally’s organizers, chief alt-rightist Richard Spencer, once said his movement has a “psychic connection” with Trump. Scroll through the countless Twitter accounts with swastikas and racist memes posted in between or alongside statements of support for Trump’s candidacy and presidency.

Given all this, Trump has a duty—as the president of the United States, as the head of a major political party, as a decent American—to make clear that these people are mistaken, that white supremacists and neo-Nazis have nothing in common with Trump’s agenda or his vision for the country. It does no good to say, in the same breath, that “both sides” are a part of the problem. The problem is that one side, the violent, racist side, believes they have an ally in the White House. And they have increasingly good reason to think that.

Trump had failed to forcefully disavow racist groups like the KKK during the campaign, most notably when David Duke endorsed him. He had so far not done so as president, but the Charlottesville rally, which culminated in the violent death of a counter-protester by the act of a white supremacist, gave him the plum opportunity to right this wrong. He equivocated on Saturday with his initial statement, stating “many sides” were to blame for the violence. Eliana Johnson at Politico reported that this line was ad-libbed, a deviation from the prepared text that was “similar in tone and substance” to a follow-up statement Trump made Monday. That statement did specifically call out the white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and KKK by name. It wasn’t perfect and it was done under duress, but Trump seemed to be moving toward saying the right thing.

But at a Trump Tower press conference, ostensibly to tout an infrastructure executive order, the president undid all this. A reporter asked why he waited so long—about two days after Saturday’s events—to denounce the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. Trump defended his initial statement on Saturday, calling it “fine” and saying multiple times he wanted to know the “facts” before saying too much. (Never mind that it was clear, from photos and video of the Charlottesville events on Friday and Saturday that participants were waving Nazi flags and chanting Nazi-adopted slogans.)

Pressed about the alt-right’s participation in the Charlottesville rally and the movement’s links to attacks on his national security adviser, Trump pushed back, asking “what about the alt-left” and its guilt in instigating the violence. “You had a group on the other side that was also very violent,” Trump said. “And nobody wants to say that, but I'll say it right now.” (Never mind that it was an alt-righter who drove into the crowd and killed one person and injured several others.)

Trump excused anyone marching in Charlottesville who were not neo-Nazis or white supremacists. “Those people were also there, because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue Robert E. Lee,” he said. “Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. So this week, it’s Robert E. Lee, I noticed that Stonewall Jackson’s coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after. You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

He offered that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the protests Saturday and insisted not everyone marching alongside the swastika banners and chanting anti-Semitic and white separatist chants was bad.

What was the message the racist alt-right took away from Trump’s presser Tuesday? “Progress!” said one. “Thank you President Trump for condemning the alt-left antifa thugs” said another. Richard Spencer said he was “really proud” of Trump for “speaking the truth.”

And what was the message for the rest of the country, the vast, vast majority of Americans who are not on board with the white nationalism on display in Charlottesville? That the president didn’t really believe it was important to call out the neo-Nazis and racists explicitly, as he did Monday? That the president views those marching in his name in Charlottesville as an important part of his political coalition? That perhaps Trump’s purpose really is aligned with the alt-right’s worldview?

That’s up to Americans to decide for themselves.

↑ Fox ↓

Fri, Aug 25 2017, 4:46 pm

marina wrote:

Again. You know who may not control speech? The federal government. Trump and his administration. Federal agencies. State government. Your governor. State agencies. School districts. Police stations. City halls.

You know who may control speech? Everyone else.

Including everyone in Silicon Valley. Google is obligated to promote freedom of speech just like your local kosher butchery is. Which is to say not very much at all. If you don't like that, use the free market and install a different search engine.

You're stating the obvious. Of course, Google is a private company. Don't dumb down these issues.

We're talking about the intent of the First Amendment as it should be applied to digital communication and platforms that didn't exist at the time of its inception. I understand that you think it is perfectly acceptable for Google to manipulate search results or autofill, for example, because -- hey, they're a private company and there's no law against it!

On the other hand, it's wrong for a woman to be relegated to the back of the bus on the way from NYC to Monsey (though that would seem to me to be enough punishment in itself) because there is a law about how private companies can act when offering public accommodations.

No one is discussing what the law is -- rather, what it should be.

But again, the fact that you don't find these issues worthy of serious discussion puts you in a distinct minority, even among liberals in the tech world.

Last edited by Fox on Fri, Aug 25 2017, 5:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ Fox ↓

Fri, Aug 25 2017, 4:58 pm

Quote:

And what was the message for the rest of the country, the vast, vast majority of Americans who are not on board with the white nationalism on display in Charlottesville? That the president didn’t really believe it was important to call out the neo-Nazis and racists explicitly, as he did Monday? That the president views those marching in his name in Charlottesville as an important part of his political coalition? That perhaps Trump’s purpose really is aligned with the alt-right’s worldview?

That’s up to Americans to decide for themselves.

Yes, I read this and a ton of other op-eds critical of Trump's handling of Charlottesville.

I do not read this as, "Trump is a Nazi sympathizer," which was Jeanette's claim upthread.

I read this as, "Trump handled this awkwardly." Okay. Granted.

At the same time, I've watched the news conference repeatedly at which Trump said there were "fine people on both sides," and I am far from convinced that he meant that there were fine people marching with the neo-Nazis. Rather, that there were fine people on both sides of the monument dispute.

Am I engaging in apologetics? Perhaps. But Trump has never been identified has having extreme views on race or religion in the past. In fact, before he entered politics, he was warmly praised for his generosity to causes that assisted various minority groups. Given his history, I see no reason that he would suddenly become a Nazi supporter.

In fact, I was far more appalled by the behavior of the journalists at the news conference than by anything Trump said. I realize this is commonplace these days, but the screaming and shrill questioning made it impossible to hear what was being answered. I do not see how anyone could reliable connect any answer given by Trump to a specific question.

So I have no trouble with the Weekly Standard's op-ed or any other criticism. Many of their points are legitimate. But that doesn't lead me to believe that Trump is a Nazi sympathizer.

↑ 33055 ↓

Fri, Aug 25 2017, 4:59 pm

marina wrote:

Everyone comes with their own experiences. The AA and Hispanic students in my graduate and law programs were... smarter and more capable than I will ever be, no matter how hard I try. They made me feel like maybe I could absorb some of that just by being around them, so I tried to hang around them.

And when I worked as a school psychologist in inner city schools, I got a very good glimpse of the horrors that many minority children face starting from the very beginning of life. Although I was initially against affirmative action, I quickly saw that those few students who make it despite everything in their entire lives, should have the red carpet rolled out for them because they (a) deserve it; and (b) they can make it, with some help.

Two examples:

* A black child who essentially lives on his own from the age of 7 because mom is in jail and grandma is bedridden, and who gets himself up and showers and finds food and goes to school every single day from the age of 7 completely on his own, even when the electricity and heating is shut off, and he graduates with even average grades- that kid deserves college and all the good things in life and if he needs a little help figuring out college, it is our societal moral obligation to step up and be there for that kid.

Not to say, "well, hey, I guess you just can't hack college cause you got in here because of your race, and that's why Affirmative Action sucks."

* A black girl who is raped by her mom's boyfriend weekly starting from 5th grade and still manages to show up to school and work hard and graduate, with or without a baby, she deserves college and all the good things in life and she can make it with some help and it's our obligation to provide that help. See above.

These are kids I actually saw and called CPS for. We all come to Affirmative Action with our own experiences and these are mine.

I don't disagree with you. My friend in grad school was a large woman living in the projects sharing a bed with her sister who was an equally large woman. She didn't even have her own bed! Her mother was a single welfare mom.

Kudos to her for having ambition, but despite support, she was not prepared for the program, nor could she keep up.

The students deserve an opportunity, but what happens when they can't meet the qualifying exams?

Eliminating the literacy test for teachers because minority teachers are having difficulty passing the exam is not in the best interest of the students.

We have this problem in Monsey. Many of our teachers are a product of the frum schools. They can't teach what they don't know. Many teachers and administrators can't even write simple declarative second grade sentences.

https://www.google.com/amp/www...../amp/

I totally agree with you on a micro level, but when you do this for millions of students, you create a problem for millions of better students who aren't getting opportunities.

There is some point where it must balance.

↑ 33055

Fri, Aug 25 2017, 5:14 pm

marina wrote:

A more global perspective on Affirmative Action:

No universities are obligated to consider race in admissions. This is their own choice, the choice of their CEOs and Board members.

It is completely 100% legitimate for a post secondary institution to decide what kind of class it wants. Some value classes where everyone is on a certain academic level and others value classes where there is diversity of experience, even if academic levels fluctuate.

Imagine that this woman in your class who got a lower score than you was a Yazidi refugee from an ISIS war camp, with all the terrors that implies. And your school accepted her for what she could offer in diversity and because of their perceived obligation to refugees, even if her academics were not up to your standards.

Would you still be so indignant? Would you still feel sorry for her because she couldn't pass the exam? Or would you be ashamed of the society that didn't put all its efforts into lifting this person up?

Universities are a resource of our country. One Yazidi refugee doesn't make a difference. But millions do. I am not ashamed of a society that puts its own citizens first before billions of refugees.

Who is going to pay for ALL refugees? What is going to happen to the next generation of Americans if we aren't educating our own? One third of science and engineering post-graduate students in the U.S. are foreign born.

America First speaks to the million Americans who didn't get a spot because a foreign student did.

↑ Fox ↓

Fri, Aug 25 2017, 5:16 pm

marina wrote:

We've gone over this and over this, and you seem to have some kind of mental block regarding the whole thing.

Breitbart is 100 percent honest and upfront about their biases. Their entire raison d'etre is to examine stories from a specific viewpoint. They do not claim to be objective with regard to what stories they choose to cover or the slant that they take in covering them. They are not only conservative, but a specific brand of conservatism and have a strong commitment to religious practice. In fact, I started reading Breitbart simply because they were the only ones providing what I believed to be fair coverage of Israel. They enthusiastically endorsed Trump and are critical whenever he backs down on any of his platform, no matter how inconsequential.

Now, contrast that with, say, the NYT. No one would have any problem whatsoever if the NYT said, "Hey, we offer a white, male, urban, left-of-center, secularly-oriented perspective." We could all take that into consideration when consuming their content. But that's not what they say. They are dishonest about the effect of their own biases -- even when they are forced to admit that those biases impact how the report news. Their publisher admitted, "We pledge to do better" after the election, and one of the executive editors has admitted that they don't "get" religion.

I referenced CNN's Don Lemon and his conversation with Ben Shapiro. Just for the record, keep in mind that Ben Shapiro is not a friend of Breitbart for a whole bunch of reasons. Not only did Don Lemon not recognize the bias he was bringing to the story, he continued not to recognize it after Shapiro pointed it out.

Is Don Lemon's perspective somehow invalid? Of course not. We should certainly hear his analysis based on his experiences and ideology. He undoubtedly has valuable things to say. Just don't lie about what that ideology is.