President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Are you a journalist/former journalist, arguing for less watchdogging?

 

I love how the same Republican Party that has screeched endlessly for the last 40 years about how “The Media” cannot be trusted is so willing to trust Trump that his tax returns are squeaky clean.

 

Nobody recalls what anyone else’s tax returns were because they didn’t raise suspicion by going to super lengths to hide them and when they did release them, there was nothing important in them.

 

Republicans know exactly who Trump is and how corrupt and inept.

They don't care.

That's the punchline to the last 40 years.

 

Not even identical twins are the same thing. You will never encounter an argument in your life where the things you are comparing are the same thing. No case in this country would ever come to trial if, in their arguments, attorneys were restricted to discussing matters that were the same thing. Murder by strangulation and murder by gunshot are not the same thing. I think we can agree the perpetrators deserve the same punishment, however.

Not the same thing is a stupid disqualification. Quit using it.

 

"The country" doesn't mandate those things, and you know that.

I don't it's unreasonable. I do think, if the one guy with potentially the most objectionable tax returns was able to A, not release them, and B, still win an election, it is unreasonable to think it really matters. If it's that important, make it a law.

Surely you can see how crappy it makes the media look to pursue and enforce this standard. This isn't watchdog stuff. This is "nobody said the guy had to do this, and he didn't, and he got elected anyway, but he's a liar and an asshole, so we're doing this" kind of work, in can be construed as retaliatory, and even though I don't view it as that, I view as a kind of steward of the public trust thing, I nevertheless feel like the media is carrying too much of the freight on a voluntary thing.

Let the government do it, or not do it. Far too often, the government does nothing, farms it out to the press, which is countered by alternative press, and so on.

Like, for example, I like the government compelling Mueller to testify. Good. Let him speak for himself, vs. reports on phone calls and vague frustrations from his team and other nonsense.

 

Forget about Congress doing "their job." How about the American people doing theirs and hold elected officials accountable? And expecting their leaders to represent our country with a little class?

 

The press taking up the slack for a feckless Congress is hardly new. Or news.

In fact it's sort of the role the press is meant to play in a functioning democracy.

I understand your point that Congress should do the work of Congress.

But when it doesn't, or won't, or can't, it's the job of the press to hold it accountable, and to raise questions on behalf of the public.

 

No, because they are not equivalent in meaningful ways that invalidate your point. By the way, silly crap like the little font games you used in that post are not a replacement for viable content within the post. Do better.

Also, my post was short. There was no reason to edit it except to try to take what I wrote out of context in an attempt to mislead those reading yours. That was dishonest. Again, do better.

 

As it relates to the voluntary release of tax returns?

I will say this: The media is best when it demands very little and is entitled to nothing. It just is, and follows that wherever it goes. Media has power that way. You report, you produce the report, you report more, you produce, and so on. At some point, genuflecting on what you produced, and expecting some sort of result because of it, has become important enough to be too important. And perhaps it has to be for business reasons. Maybe it has to be, because the recognition shapes whether folks want your product.

We can certainly talk about how bad Trump is as a person. I'm not really talking about that, and you seem to be, so, just so we're clear, yeah, I think he's a bad president.

 

"(Trump) reportedly insisted Leerhsen include an “obviously made up” story in the book about how he was walking down the street and saw a completely naked woman."

 

There may very well have been something important in them. I don't recall. I'm sure many stories were written about them. But whatever it was faded from memory.

But, if true, then I'm not sure what voluntary release proved, if the one guy who didn't release them wasn't punished by voters for not doing so.

My stance is it's a thing the media came to expect, and actually used the query about when they'd be released as as much of speculative story as what was actually in them. Then, along comes a guy who doesn't play the game, the media can't really do anything about it, and puts him on TV all day long because he's good for ratings.