Time to get on the TRUMP train

[sonatine]

The New York Times has admitted to changing its editorial policy and standards simply because they oppose Trump.

New York Times is to the left what Breitbart is to the right.

Trump drew first blood, respectfully. There is a social contract at bar and he violated it. The main stream press drew between the lines until he went full dictator.

Your argument is tantamount to saying 'they should let him slit their throats for telling the truth' and thats not something a sane, intelligent person would consider realistic.

[sonatine]

Additionally, and this was one of the first post-election realities the press confronted, they actually said point blank that they were responsible for this debacle by never once taking him seriously or honestly covering his festival of xenophobic madness in real time.

They made a joke of him and it went over middle america's heads.

And they accepted a measure of responsibility for that.

Obviously anyone who views Trump in a positive light is not going to agree with that agenda, but "finally someone is in power who is as simple minded as I am" isnt a functional social mandate and as such, cannot be considered a valid argument against the press defending itself from someone who has no business molding the future of a democracy.

Also the MSM is the new Fox, is the analogy youre looking for, and the fact that Fox itself is on their side should tell you exactly how indoctrinated you.

[ErickAA]

The New York Times has admitted to changing its editorial policy and standards simply because they oppose Trump.

New York Times is to the left what Breitbart is to the right.

Trump drew first blood, respectfully. There is a social contract at bar and he violated it. The main stream press drew between the lines until he went full dictator.

Your argument is tantamount to saying 'they should let him slit their throats for telling the truth' and thats not something a sane, intelligent person would consider realistic.

Trump originally had no agenda against the media. If they had buttered his ass he would have loved them in kind. But they were super critical of him in unprecedented fashionand he verbally attacked them in reply.

I personally think the MSM went too far going after him in an obvious partisan fashion. That being said, he is also clearly a crook who has no business being President, but I do think the media took it a little too much upon themselves to make it their mission to thwart the will of the American people, with a partisan full court press agains their elected president.

I think this is going to set a very bad precedent where next time there is a Democrat president the right wing entertainment/media is going to have a field day going after them, and justify it by saying they are just doing the same thing as the MSM did with Trump.

[ErickAA]

Additionally, and this was one of the first post-election realities the press confronted, they actually said point blank that they were responsible for this debacle by never once taking him seriously or honestly covering his festival of xenophobic madness in real time.

They made a joke of him and it went over middle america's heads.

And they accepted a measure of responsibility for that.

Obviously anyone who views Trump in a positive light is not going to agree with that agenda, but "finally someone is in power who is as simple minded as I am" isnt a functional social mandate and as such, cannot be considered a valid argument against the press defending itself from someone who has no business molding the future of a democracy.

Also the MSM is the new Fox, is the analogy youre looking for, and the fact that Fox itself is on their side should tell you exactly how indoctrinated you.

Whether they were responsible for the debacle, I think they are going way too far to try to "fix things" by trying to push him out of office, which they have been doing since day 1. I think their "solution" is just making things worse.

[limitles]

This is what you must not do when critiquing anything.
Jordan Peterson says this. Ok, what does the reporter say?
There are two sides to every story. Peterson does not have some pass whereby anything he says is accurate or true.
Unless you have the other side to the story you can't be confident in your judgement

Well, in this case it is pretty cut and dry. Jordan Peterson made a written reply to the article. He basically said the reporter knew exactly what he meant and purposefully twisted his words to fit her narrative. I listen to Jordan Peterson a lot, and he kinda just repeats the same stuff over and over, and his version (which doesn't match what the reporter wrote) is consistent with what he always says, so I am inclined to believe him.

Also, one thing you will not find is the NYT acknowledging that Peterson wrote a concise, articulate reply saying the reporter was being dishonest. Because they aren't in the business of reporting the truth. They are in the business of pushing their own narrative.

He also said the entire 2 days they were together the reporter was very cordial with him and they talked about a lot of stuff in a respectful fashion. He said when she wrote the article she completely changed and got very confrontational and judgmental, and on top of that she ignored 95% of what he said and just focused on pushing her own narrative, which covered about 5 minutes of their 2 day conversation. Basically a straight ambush.

He made a written reply to the article, in the NYT, I'm assuming? If they printed his reply, that is all that is required of them.
Beyond that it's a he says she says debate.
If you haven't heard the reporters side of things you can't just assume Peterson is telling the truth.

[sonatine]

Additionally, and this was one of the first post-election realities the press confronted, they actually said point blank that they were responsible for this debacle by never once taking him seriously or honestly covering his festival of xenophobic madness in real time.

They made a joke of him and it went over middle america's heads.

And they accepted a measure of responsibility for that.

Obviously anyone who views Trump in a positive light is not going to agree with that agenda, but "finally someone is in power who is as simple minded as I am" isnt a functional social mandate and as such, cannot be considered a valid argument against the press defending itself from someone who has no business molding the future of a democracy.

Also the MSM is the new Fox, is the analogy youre looking for, and the fact that Fox itself is on their side should tell you exactly how indoctrinated you.

Whether they were responsible for the debacle, I think they are going way too far to try to "fix things" by trying to push him out of office, which they have been doing since day 1. I think their "solution" is just making things worse.

For a bit, yes. The alternative is morally/ethically unacceptable however.

Also lets be honest when they Article 25 him, its not going to be the press who gets blamed.

[ErickAA]

Well, in this case it is pretty cut and dry. Jordan Peterson made a written reply to the article. He basically said the reporter knew exactly what he meant and purposefully twisted his words to fit her narrative. I listen to Jordan Peterson a lot, and he kinda just repeats the same stuff over and over, and his version (which doesn't match what the reporter wrote) is consistent with what he always says, so I am inclined to believe him.

Also, one thing you will not find is the NYT acknowledging that Peterson wrote a concise, articulate reply saying the reporter was being dishonest. Because they aren't in the business of reporting the truth. They are in the business of pushing their own narrative.

He also said the entire 2 days they were together the reporter was very cordial with him and they talked about a lot of stuff in a respectful fashion. He said when she wrote the article she completely changed and got very confrontational and judgmental, and on top of that she ignored 95% of what he said and just focused on pushing her own narrative, which covered about 5 minutes of their 2 day conversation. Basically a straight ambush.

He made a written reply to the article, in the NYT, I'm assuming? If they printed his reply, that is all that is required of them.
Beyond that it's a he says she says debate.
If you haven't heard the reporters side of things you can't just assume Peterson is telling the truth.

The only problem with your thinking is that Jordan Peterson spends about 50 hours a week doing various podcasts, interviews and speaking gigs saying exactly what he thinks. So if you listen to him (which I do) it is pretty clear and unambiguous what he thinks and it is very obvious when someone is mischaracterizing him, which is exactly what happened in this case, and most other cases when the MSM goes after him.

[MumblesBadly]

He made a written reply to the article, in the NYT, I'm assuming? If they printed his reply, that is all that is required of them.
Beyond that it's a he says she says debate.
If you haven't heard the reporters side of things you can't just assume Peterson is telling the truth.

The only problem with your thinking is that Jordan Peterson spends about 50 hours a week doing various podcasts, interviews and speaking gigs saying exactly what he thinks. So if you listen to him (which I do) it is pretty clear and unambiguous what he thinks and it is very obvious when someone is mischaracterizing him, which is exactly what happened in this case, and most other cases when the MSM goes after him.

I don’t rely upon the “MSM” to learn how Jordan Peterson lies to advance his agenda.





And when he doesn’t outright lie, he dissembles in some pretty shady and dishonest ways.

‘What I’m Doing Is Not Political. It’s Psychological … And It’s Working’
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...tico-50-219620

Robertson: What is the key difference between a personality that is self-actualized and assertive in the way in which you hope to lead your readers, and an overly authoritarian personality like Trump’s? Where does a man’s psyche—

Peterson: Well, first of all, it’s not clear that Trump has an authoritarian personality. I would say that he has the personality of a salesman. He’s extremely extroverted and assertive, and somewhat disagreeable. But that isn’t the hallmark of a classic authoritarian, because classic authoritarians tend to be extremely orderly. So whatever Trump might be, it’s not obvious that he’s a classic authoritarian.

...

Robertson: How would you characterize his illiberal tendencies, if not as authoritarian? What do you think would be a better word for that?

Peterson: Which tendencies?

Robertson: To dispense with court rulings, et cetera ...

Peterson: Well, you know, I’m really not that interested in addressing Trump’s idiosyncrasies and peculiarities. I’m not a domain expert in American politics, and I don’t think what I have to say about Trump, apart from what I can observe psychologically—which is that criticisms of him as a classic authoritarian are misguided—I don’t think I have many things to say that are interesting about him.

Which is utter bullshit. Peterson knows that Trump is authoritarian but doesn’t want to alienate any of his Trumptard fans who might get pissed at him for saying so.

And the there’s the “What is true” debate with Sam Harris in which Peterson puts forward an utterly flawed argument for what constitutes what is true in order to promote his claim that Christianity is the best belief system that human beings should have.

[BiffCo99]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1038761340817604608

[blake]

i hate trump but love jordan peterson. his fan base is a lot more than just right wingers

[blake]

Trump drew first blood, respectfully. There is a social contract at bar and he violated it. The main stream press drew between the lines until he went full dictator.

Your argument is tantamount to saying 'they should let him slit their throats for telling the truth' and thats not something a sane, intelligent person would consider realistic.

Trump originally had no agenda against the media. If they had buttered his ass he would have loved them in kind. But they were super critical of him in unprecedented fashionand he verbally attacked them in reply.

I personally think the MSM went too far going after him in an obvious partisan fashion. That being said, he is also clearly a crook who has no business being President, but I do think the media took it a little too much upon themselves to make it their mission to thwart the will of the American people, with a partisan full court press agains their elected president.

I think this is going to set a very bad precedent where next time there is a Democrat president the right wing entertainment/media is going to have a field day going after them, and justify it by saying they are just doing the same thing as the MSM did with Trump.

did you not have access to tv or the internet when obama was in office? you don't think fox or breitbart was similarly negative in their coverage?

if your response is that the MSM is even more negative than fox or breitbart was during obama's term, i'm not sure that's true. but that assessment would also imply that trump is not more deserving of negative coverage, which he is.

the MSM hammers trump cause he appears to be a genuinely retarded person every time he speaks/tweets. how should the press cover that? it's not the MSM that drafted the NYTimes op ed saying that his cabinet considered the 25th Amendment.

[BiffCo99]

Trump originally had no agenda against the media. If they had buttered his ass he would have loved them in kind. But they were super critical of him in unprecedented fashionand he verbally attacked them in reply.

I personally think the MSM went too far going after him in an obvious partisan fashion. That being said, he is also clearly a crook who has no business being President, but I do think the media took it a little too much upon themselves to make it their mission to thwart the will of the American people, with a partisan full court press agains their elected president.

I think this is going to set a very bad precedent where next time there is a Democrat president the right wing entertainment/media is going to have a field day going after them, and justify it by saying they are just doing the same thing as the MSM did with Trump.

did you not have access to tv or the internet when obama was in office? you don't think fox or breitbart was similarly negative in their coverage?

if your response is that the MSM is even more negative than fox or breitbart was during obama's term, i'm not sure that's true. but that assessment would also imply that trump is not more deserving of negative coverage, which he is.

the MSM hammers trump cause he appears to be a genuinely retarded person every time he speaks/tweets. how should the press cover that? it's not the MSM that drafted the NYTimes op ed saying that his cabinet considered the 25th Amendment.

So your main gripe is you don’t like the way he speaks in public? I’ve seen you take bits and pieces of his speeches and rip them to shreds. That was the favored tactic when W Bush was in office too. Yeah Trump rambles a lot but that’s what makes him awesome, he just don’t care.

And you can’t compare what Fox and Breitbart did to Obama to what’s happening right now. Trump is taking on the entirety of Network News on a national and LOCAL level, plus the entirety of social media which is a different animal these days than what Obama dealt with and is owned and operated by liberals, and the entire entertainment industry which includes star athletes!

What Obama faced from the media was nothing, they fawned over him. And when he did face any opposition he bristled just as hard as Trump does.

[Gookieheimowitz]

This just sums it all up

[Tellafriend]

[sonatine]

the right wing entertainment/media

i mean..... ok druffs radio show, breitbart, fox news, and what else exactly?

[lol wow]

you have no obligation to respond to this guy who literally gets SHRIMP POKE LIKE AAAAAN IIIIDIOT

[big dick]

shut up lol wow you suck.


I'm hoping Trump just makes it the 4 years and then we can elect someone but I do not want this fuck head Pence just stepping into office cus the current president quit or gets impeached

[lol wow]

awww what a great story

[Baron Von Strucker]

awww what a great story

I was expecting something a little more homoerotic.

great writing tho almost like it really happened.

[blake]

did you not have access to tv or the internet when obama was in office? you don't think fox or breitbart was similarly negative in their coverage?

if your response is that the MSM is even more negative than fox or breitbart was during obama's term, i'm not sure that's true. but that assessment would also imply that trump is not more deserving of negative coverage, which he is.

the MSM hammers trump cause he appears to be a genuinely retarded person every time he speaks/tweets. how should the press cover that? it's not the MSM that drafted the NYTimes op ed saying that his cabinet considered the 25th Amendment.

So your main gripe is you don’t like the way he speaks in public? I’ve seen you take bits and pieces of his speeches and rip them to shreds. That was the favored tactic when W Bush was in office too. Yeah Trump rambles a lot but that’s what makes him awesome, he just don’t care.

it's not so much what he says, as much as it is that only a person with a sub-80 IQ would say them. with this economy and his nationalist message, if he was even semi-literate, his approval rating would be over 60%+

apparently his staffers send out texts with the hashtag #TFA (for the Twenty-Fifth Amendment) so that's normal.