Trump's response to Meryl Streep's speech....

[reohn2]

Meic,Vorpal
+1

[blackbike]

" You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden.”" ...

When you look you make an observation.

An observation is not criticism.

President Trump invites his fellow Americans to observe what is happening in Germany and Sweden as regards immigration.

If they take him up on this offer they can make up their own minds and see if they want the same for their own country or not.

I can't see how anyone can have a problem with that, especially anti-Trump people who claim that the benefits of large scale immigration from the middle east and north Africa are plain for all to see. They should welcome as much observation of the effects of that immigration as possible.

[Vorpal]

I agree with your post, just not with the unstated implication that the subject matter of this thread is the right and proper actions of a decent media.

I am still puzzled (perhaps I am slow)about your position. I am not implying anything but trying to state my position as clearly as I can.
The subject of the thread is "Trumps Reaction etc" but that has drifted a little to his utterance about Sweden.
It is my position that he used a fictitious and clearly non existent happening ("in Sweden on Friday") to try to instill in his followers a fear of immigration by a certain ethnic religious group. A rabble rousing of the worst possible type.
And especially so given the horrific figures of domestic gun crime in the USA.

That this was a complete fabrication warrants being exposed for what it is by the medias. Especially so, given the extensive attacks and high moral stance about "False news" by Trump and his spokesmen during the previous week.
If there's one thing that gets under my skin it's hypocrisy.
The "leader of the free world" is proving to be a leader in spouting outright lies.
Expose him, is ok in my book.

But it's a big, fat red herring. It just doesn't matter what Trump said about Sweden. The 'real' story is are the bills proposed in the legislative branch, which may eliminate the EPA and the Department of Education, among other things.

[meic]

Especially so, given the extensive attacks and high moral stance about "False news" by Trump and his spokesmen during the previous week.

They are only claiming foul in this way because they have been subjected to a torrent of hostile press for many months now.

This is mixing up cause and effect or who started it.

It started happening before Trump entered politics.

Why are they so keen to talk about this instead of the big issues?
Is it that they are lobbying for power rather than issues?
Ratings through entertainment rather than news?
Or seeking to overthrow an elected politician who is pandering to the masses instead of the establishment?

I dont know why, I am not really interested in US internal affairs. I just see a clear, partisan, biased media attack.

[bovlomov]

'liberal' media reports it as either heartwarming proof of human [nice descriptives] or the result of the evil right
'conservative' media reports it as a consequence of conservative policy if it's good and liberal policy if it's bad
people share stupid memes on Facebook that have very little to do with <story>
'liberal' media starts calls the conservative reports racist/sexist/[whatever]ist
'conservative' media starts complaining how the liberals always call people [whatever]ist
both sides stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la la' (and unfriend people on Facebook)

The word 'liberal' has been thrown around rather loosely, and has come to mean anything the user wants.

The EU = the liberal elite. Yet the largest EU countries have been led, for the past decade, predominantly by right leaning, often socially conservative parties. Juncker, Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Cameron... etc. The bankers - another liberal elite - have been supported and abetted by politicians across the board, but most enthusiastically from the right. Wars have been supported most enthusiastically by the right.

So, when looking for what has gone wrong, when looking for media bias, and when talking about elites and the establishment, the term 'liberal' needs extensive qualification. In most cases it is the wrong word. Note that The Guardian - voice of the liberal elite - has a load of financiers on its board. It regularly publishes illiberal opinions. Is it liberal? Discuss.

In the case of Trump - criticism of him came as much from Republicans as from Democrats. The Republicans have gone a bit quiet recently, presumably they are waiting to see what will happen. But, to be clear, you don't need to be a liberal (whatever that is) to find Trump appalling.

[661-Pete]

The word 'liberal' has been thrown around rather loosely, and has come to mean anything the user wants.

Indeed it seems to have become a term of opprobrium, when wielded by those of the far-right persuasion. This is a recent development to me - I can live with being called a 'leftie', a word which goes way back to my student days and before (although, as a student, I don't think I was ever a full-blown leftie - though I did join in an anti-Enoch-Powell demo once. After all, I had exams to pass).

So - as you point out - what, now, is the meaning of 'liberal'? Does it mean any of us who happen not to be alt-right, white-supremacist, jingoist reactionaries?

Discuss, indeed!

[meic]

Does it mean any of us who happen not to be far-right, jingoist reactionaries?

More likely the mirror image of the far right reactionaries, after all what are they reacting against?
I imagine most of the population fall outside of both camps, neutral observers swayed by whatever news article is infront of them at the time.

[kwackers]

I have it on good right wing authority that we're all wet liberals by virtue of being cyclists.

[Psamathe]

" You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden.”" ...

When you look you make an observation.

An observation is not criticism.

President Trump invites his fellow Americans to observe what is happening in Germany and Sweden as regards immigration.

If they take him up on this offer they can make up their own minds and see if they want the same for their own country or not.

I can't see how anyone can have a problem with that, especially anti-Trump people who claim that the benefits of large scale immigration from the middle east and north Africa are plain for all to see. They should welcome as much observation of the effects of that immigration as possible.

You've chopped off the 1st part of the quote! What was said (and posted) was "[i]We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden.”[/i]"

And it is the 1st part that changes the tone to being a criticism.

Ian

[Psamathe]

To me the worrying aspect about this is not so much that Trump got it wrong but that

he either a) knew the truth and decided that telling a complete lie to pursue his own agenda was acceptable
or b) did not know the truth (as the President of the US he was totally unaware what happened (or didn't in Sweden).

Either deliberately lying or being unaware and making stuff up is of concern with somebody in such a powerful position and having found out about it, can anybody trust what he says in future. And is that really acceptable with almost 4 years still to go.

Politicians may well lie and cheat but to be found out so soon, to continue to just make stuff up and to do it from such a position of power and responsibility and in such a manner that you are bound to be "found-out" suggests particular stupidity (or illusions of grandeur and invincibility ... all "worrying").

Ian

[meic]

can anybody trust what he says in future. And is that really acceptable with almost 4 years still to go.

Of course dont trust him.
Are you saying that you trusted Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May?
Did you trust Raygun, Bush, Clinton, Bush or Obama?

If it isnt acceptable what then, do we invade the most powerful military in the world and depose their elected leader because he doesnt have the approval of the establishment?

Then there are "lies" as in references to events in Sweden or say Jack Straw's famous "Iraq is twice the size of France", which are not material "lies" directly pertinent to the issue. Compared to proper lies like WMD's in 45 minutes, which were not only deliberate but the main basis of invading another country.
Blair had a history too long to mention of other more petty lies like this prior to that but they never really got any air time.

[kwackers]

Of course dont trust him.
Are you saying that you trusted Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May?
Did you trust Raygun, Bush, Clinton, Bush or Obama?

To be fair most politicians are economical with the truth in a believable way. When Blair said Iraq had WMD's I doubt any normal person could have disproved it.
In contrast Trumps fibs and his petulant delivery of them are mind bogglingly childish.

I'd be more worried about who's really pulling the strings behind Trump whilst the buffoon puppet is distracting us all.

[meic]

I'd be more worried about who's really pulling the strings behind Trump whilst the buffoon puppet is distracting us all.

I think things may be worse than you think. That for the first time in our lives we actually have a wildcard President who is not having his strings pulled by the existing establishment, which is why they are acting collectively to try and oust him.

[PDQ Mobile]

I'd be more worried about who's really pulling the strings behind Trump whilst the buffoon puppet is distracting us all.

I think things may be worse than you think. That for the first time in our lives we actually have a wildcard President who is not having his strings pulled by the existing establishment, which is why they are acting collectively to try and oust him.

They are not necessarily trying to collectively oust him IMV. Merely subject him to normal scrutiny. It's tough at the top.
It is he who has stated they are spreading "false news". So if he does it himself to try to whip up hatred and fear against a largely innocent group of people it is not a "Red Herring" to expose it, if it is a demonstrable misrepresentation.
I am not convinced about his "not belonging to the establishment" either. The term is too broad to be useful.
Which establishment? Money and business not represented?
A champion of the poor, hardly that so far.
His appointments seem just very, very, right wing and illiberal.

Liberal is a compliment.IMHO. Long live Liberal.

[meic]

His appointments seem just very, very, right wing and illiberal.

He is in the Republican Party, which is right wing and illiberal.
There wouldnt be much point in voting Republican if you still had to have Democratic appointees.

The establishment is those networks of people who had influence over how government is enacted and who had a common consensus of how things should be done which was largely beneficial to those already benefiting from how things are. Trump is certainly rich but he isnt part of that controlling establishment or has usurped those above him in the hierarchy.
The establishment and media would be launching an equally concerted attack if Bernie Sanders had managed to get elected and was appointing a load of "Liberal" appointees.

The coverage of Milliband and his bacon butties etc was hardly "subjecting him to normal scrutiny".
The same thing is happening to Trump, Farage and Corbyn, all usurpers, offering* to look after the working class instead of the privileged class.

*It doesnt actually matter if they will or not, the others have proven that they will NOT.