• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump calls for a nuclear weapons reduction deal with President Putin of Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand how exactly the press failed the voters.

They ran everything negative about Trump - Russia, Pussy Grabbing, Bullying... everything.

And that somehow encouraged morons to vote for him?

What exactly were they supposed to do to make people vote against him? Make him look like a good guy?

The press is the reason we know all this horrible shit about Trump.
 

MIMIC

Banned
I don't understand how exactly the press failed the voters.

They ran everything negative about Trump - Russia, Pussy Grabbing, Bullying... everything.

And that somehow encouraged morons to vote for him?

What exactly were they supposed to do to make people vote against him? Make him look like a good guy?


The press is the reason we know all this horrible shit about Trump.

I see that as spin. The news is supposed to report the news. Period.

Nobody's complaining about CNN's latest Trump-Russia's report, are they?
 

RDreamer

Member
I don't understand how exactly the press failed the voters.

They ran everything negative about Trump - Russia, Pussy Grabbing, Bullying... everything.

And that somehow encouraged morons to vote for him?

What exactly were they supposed to do to make people vote against him? Make him look like a good guy?

The press is the reason we know all this horrible shit about Trump.

They also talked extensively about Clinton's "negatives" and made a big deal out of shit that shouldn't be there, too.

They didn't talk at all about policy and substance between the two candidates. If they framed the battle on policy things would be a different story. If they attacked Trump on substance, people would know where they stand and would have voted on that instead.

When you report nothing but negatives between the two to the point where everything sucks you give an inherent advantage to the guy that's running on "everything sucks and this is horrible," in my opinion. Every negative story really fulfilled his narrative.

Basically they cried like chicken little about everything so nothing worked and no one knew any of what these people stood for.
 
I don't understand how exactly the press failed the voters.

They ran everything negative about Trump - Russia, Pussy Grabbing, Bullying... everything.

And that somehow encouraged morons to vote for him?

What exactly were they supposed to do to make people vote against him? Make him look like a good guy?

The press is the reason we know all this horrible shit about Trump.

They turned the election into a horse race, refused to give media attention to other republican candidates, and absolutely destroyed Clinton over a fruitless investigation.
 
I don't understand how exactly the press failed the voters.

They ran everything negative about Trump - Russia, Pussy Grabbing, Bullying... everything.

And that somehow encouraged morons to vote for him?

What exactly were they supposed to do to make people vote against him? Make him look like a good guy?

The press is the reason we know all this horrible shit about Trump.
You're limiting your focus on how the media portrayed Trump and ignoring, for instance, how they reported on the email scandal with little context and almost literally to the point of exclusion of every other facet of the Democratic ticket in 2016. Their interest in a horserace dictated their need to portray Hillary as deeply flawed as Trump, which was an immediate benefit to the latter.

Relevant:
The negativity was not unique to the 2016 election cycle but instead part of a pattern in place since the 1980s and one that is not limited to election coverage. ”A healthy dose of negativity is unquestionably a good thing," writes Thomas Patterson, the study's author. ”Yet an incessant stream of criticism has a corrosive effect. It needlessly erodes trust in political leaders and institutions and undermines confidence in government and policy," resulting in a media environment full of false equivalencies that can mislead voters about the choices they face.

The study found that, on topics relating to the candidates' fitness for office, Clinton and Trump's coverage was virtually identical in terms of its negative tone. ”Were the allegations surrounding Clinton of the same order of magnitude as those surrounding Trump?" asks Patterson. ”It's a question that political reporters made no serious effort to answer during the 2016 campaign."

Figure 2. Tone of Nominees' Coverage on Topics Relating to Their ”Fitness" for Office
Figure-2-general-election-768x325.png


Edit:

They also talked extensively about Clinton's "negatives" and made a big deal out of shit that shouldn't be there, too.

They didn't talk at all about policy and substance between the two candidates. If they framed the battle on policy things would be a different story. If they attacked Trump on substance, people would know where they stand and would have voted on that instead.

When you report nothing but negatives between the two to the point where everything sucks you give an inherent advantage to the guy that's running on "everything sucks and this is horrible," in my opinion. Every negative story really fulfilled his narrative.

Basically they cried like chicken little about everything so nothing worked and no one knew any of what these people stood for.

They turned the election into a horse race, refused to give media attention to other republican candidates, and absolutely destroyed Clinton over a fruitless investigation.

^


Edit #2:

To expound on the email coverage bit I mentioned, here:

How The Media's Email Obsession Obliterated Clinton Policy Coverage
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/11/02/how-media-s-email-obsession-obliterated-clinton-policy-coverage/214242
”Not a single one of Clinton's policy proposals accounted for even 1% of her convention-period coverage; collectively, her policy stands accounted for a mere 4% of it," wrote Harvard professor Tom Patterson.

And this is key: During that same summertime period, Trump received three times as much policy coverage as Clinton. Why the large disparity? ”A major difference between Trump and Clinton's coverage was that she had a news category entirely of her own—the emails that she sent and received as secretary of state," Patterson explained. And as he noted, the vast majority of Clinton email coverage was negative.

So, during the convention weeks, the press spent eight percent of its time covering Clinton emails and half that amount of time covering all of Clinton's policy positions. CNN's The Situation Room seemed especially obsessed: Clinton emails represented 17 percent of the program's Clinton coverage during the four-week summertime span.

Those numbers certainly suggest that the press spends so much time and attention covering Clinton emails that there isn't room left for policy and issues.

And that imbalance was before the FBI email ”bombshell" late last week, which produced an almost comical spasm of media hysteria, punctuated by an avalanche of man-on-the-moon type of coverage. ”Email" has been mentioned more than two thousand times on the three cable news channels since last Friday's FBI announcement, according to TVeyes.com.

”Over the last few days, I've watched the best journalistic minds of my generation devolve into madness, frothing at the mouth over a story that neither they nor the voters they're successfully mis-educating seem to understand," wrote Will Bunch at Philly.com

And let's be honest, endless email coverage, most of which revolves around pure speculation, is just another excuse not to cover policy.

Last week, I highlighted the shocking revelation from Andrew Tyndall that the three network evening newscasts this year had aired just 32 minutes of in-depth campaign policy reporting. By comparison, ABC World News, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News devoted nearly three times as much coverage to the Clinton email story (100 minutes).

policy_emails3.png
 

Volimar

Member
I want CNN to go back to old form when reporting this.

"Trump calls for a nuclear weapons reduction deal with President Putin of Russia (There already is one)"
 
Well, putin found the bone to throw us so we can stop crippling his country's economy. Fucking cunt hacks our shit and gets rewarded for it. If hillary won this shit wouldn't be happening, fuuuuck.
 

Trouble

Banned
The only saving grace is that anything needing to get by the Senate is going to have McCain, Graham and Rubio to contend with.
 
I can't see this (on its own, exluding Trump's bs with Russia) as a bad thing. I loved Obama but I really don't think he did enough for nuclear disarmament. We'll see where this goes, however.
This is literally one of the reasons he got a Nobel Peace prize
 
I don't understand how exactly the press failed the voters.

They ran everything negative about Trump - Russia, Pussy Grabbing, Bullying... everything.

And that somehow encouraged morons to vote for him?

What exactly were they supposed to do to make people vote against him? Make him look like a good guy?

The press is the reason we know all this horrible shit about Trump.

This is same media who 8 years ago said Obama is putting USA in danger because he wants to keep his Iphone, when everyone at whitehouse has to use a blackberry.

Everything is a scary story for media
 

Usobuko

Banned
I honestly hope Putin tells Trump to fuck off.

Putin has never been more powerful because of Trump.

Indirectly, Putin, and Russia by consequences, is feared more in the world because people would think twice and consider his relationship with the POTUS before acting. Trump will be milked for as long as possible via Putin.
 

digdug2k

Member
This is same media who 8 years ago said Obama is putting USA in danger because he wants to keep his Iphone, when everyone at whitehouse has to use a blackberry.

Everything is a scary story for media
Lol. NPR ran a story just a month ago that started off talking about something serious Trump had proposed, then quickly digressed into the more important issue "How is Trump going to be able to use Tiwtter in office!", which wound up with the conclusion "Well, the president can really use whatever devices he wants". This was literally, just a few weeks after the news was done running wall to wall stories about how irresponsible and "probably illegal" it was for our Secretary of State user her personal email for non-confidential matters. "He's president. He can do whatever he wants I guess" and no one on fucking NPR even batted an eye. I'm sick of our fucking "liberal" media.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
I can't see this (on its own, exluding Trump's bs with Russia) as a bad thing. I loved Obama but I really don't think he did enough for nuclear disarmament. We'll see where this goes, however.

Well, he did pass the sanctions that may end up being the catalyst for nuclear disarmament. Assuming we believe Trump
 

MIMIC

Banned
When you report nothing but negatives between the two to the point where everything sucks you give an inherent advantage to the guy that's running on "everything sucks and this is horrible," in my opinion. Every negative story really fulfilled his narrative.

Basically they cried like chicken little about everything so nothing worked and no one knew any of what these people stood for.

Was Hillary giving Trump an advantage when she, in a debate, with 84 million eyes on her, introduced Alicia Machado to the world?
 

Steel

Banned
I'm sure this will go about as well as the last deal. *sigh* At least Trump has an excuse to lift sanctions!
 

MIMIC

Banned
On topic: This really flies directly in the face of Trump's most recent tweet on nuclear weapons. But he will say just about anything.
 
Just to recap:

Trump wants us and Russia to reduce nuclear arms in exchange for lifting sanctions against Russia. Even though we already have New START, a treaty Obama made with Russia to reduce nuclear arms back in 2010 that expires in 2021.

My senators are going to hear about this.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Just to recap:

Trump wants us and Russia to reduce nuclear arms in exchange for lifting sanctions against Russia. Even though we already have New START, a treaty Obama made with Russia to reduce nuclear arms back in 2010 and expires in 2021.

My senators are going to hear about this.

It's a con, which you see through. It's so he can lift sanctions without looking like a puppet. The worst part is people are going to fall for it.
 

neorej

ERMYGERD!
It's a con, which you see through. It's so he can lift sanctions without looking like a puppet. The worst part is people are going to fall for it.
The worst part is, Obama got vilified for his deals, Trump will be hailed for it.
 

Vagabundo

Member
So Trumps Russian masters dont believe that he will last long. They want payback on their asset immediately in spite of the optics. They will use him and toss him now that its all out in the open. So sad...
 

commedieu

Banned
Aw.. this thread didn't go as expected it seems.

What with a nuclear deal already being agreed upon with the USA and Russia.

Now that's something "I find funny."
 
This is the time for conspiracy theorists to shine.

Trump has all of this bad press with possibly committing treason with russia.

Trump said he was willing to lift sanctions, more bad press.

Trump is oddly adamant about lifting sanctions if it helps with terrorism.

Now he Saying Nuclear Weapons Disarmament because that is popular. But Obama deal was so bad though. Wink.

I'm sorry but this looks so orchestrated. You can't help but feel like they're in collaboration just to lift the damn sanctions.

It's too much of a priority.
 
This is the time for conspiracy theorists to shine.

Trump has all of this bad press with possibly committing treason with russia.

Trump said he was willing to lift sanctions, more bad press.

Trump is oddly adamant about lifting sanctions if it helps with terrorism.

Now he Saying Nuclear Weapons Disarmament because that is popular. But Obama deal was so bad though. Wink.

I'm sorry but this looks so orchestrated. You can't help but feel like they're in collaboration just to lift the damn sanctions.

It's too much or a priority.

Don't forget his first meeting as president will be with Putin and not a us ally as has been common.
 

Macam

Banned
Just to recap:

Trump wants us and Russia to reduce nuclear arms in exchange for lifting sanctions against Russia. Even though we already have New START, a treaty Obama made with Russia to reduce nuclear arms back in 2010 that expires in 2021.

My senators are going to hear about this.

Just call them -- and do call them -- and clearly state you flatly oppose lifting any sanctions whatsoever on Russia that passes through the legislative branch.
 

MUnited83

For you.
Pretty much, yeah. Nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty much off the table for the whole of the Obama administration. This is massive news for those of us who have been trying to push this back on to the table. Look, I understand that most people campaigning for non-proliferation are also opposed to Trump's other views, but that's not the point, this is a massive opportunity to reduce the world's nuclear weapons, and those that oppose that due to their personal political views of the US president are idiots.
You do realise Russia ain't going to reduce shit? Russia will not ever honor this "deal".
 

Steel

Banned
To be fair, and I'm not American, so didn't get a chance to vote. I really didn't see any of the main candidates being that appealing to centrist voters. I know that there were alternatives (greens etc), but they couldn't do anything. This probably explains "populism" in many countries. There is a democratic deficit in many mainstream democracies.

The alternatives weren't centrist. If you were centrist, the only choice was Hillary. Not saying she's a paragon of centrism, but in this world of extreme wings she was more than close enough to me.
 

Xe4

Banned
This is literally one of the reasons he got a Nobel Peace prize

Well, he did pass the sanctions that may end up being the catalyst for nuclear disarmament. Assuming we believe Trump

Again though, nuclear disarmerment is the lowest it's been since the 1980's.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...is-slowest-since-1980/?utm_term=.413b0d693e2b

I'm a big fan of Obama, but he could've done a lot better in this regard, New Start or no.

And he should've never gotten that prize, it was ridiculous to be awarded so early into his term and was more of a reaction to Bush leaving than anything else.
 

Kathian

Banned
Time for Russians to modernise their Nuclear arms I guess.

Seriously though Russia will only deal nuclear weapons in exchange for nuclear weapons. Russia has had the ability to reduce sanctions for years by removing any Russian forces from Eastern Ukraine.
 
Crimea isn't coming back, get real. We had a chance to stop that, we failed. I'm not happy about that, but Crimea is different, it was Russian, but transferred to Ukraine whilst part of USSR. That's not me excusing what Russia did, just acknowledging what happened, and being realistic that Russia won't give Crimea back. If we wanted to go to war over it, we waited too long.

Danzig was german before the treaty of versailles, South Tyria was Austrian before WW2, elsass lothringen shifted between germany and and france on a regular basis,...

The point is if we go by what has been national borders in the past we'd look at least at an all out Eurasian war and crimea isn't special in any way.
 

Steel

Banned
Time for Russians to modernise their Nuclear arms I guess.

Seriously though Russia will only deal nuclear weapons in exchange for nuclear weapons. Russia has had the ability to reduce sanctions for years by removing any Russian forces from Eastern Ukraine.

Russia has been modernizing their nuclear arms. Have you heard of the Satan 2?
 

KingV

Member
I can't see this (on its own, exluding Trump's bs with Russia) as a bad thing. I loved Obama but I really don't think he did enough for nuclear disarmament. We'll see where this goes, however.

Obama did quite a lot. He signed plans to decrease the number of warheads on submarines significantly, both in the number of warheads per missile and the number of tubes that actually contain missiles. He decreased deployed launchers by over half since 2009.
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
I can't see this (on its own, exluding Trump's bs with Russia) as a bad thing. I loved Obama but I really don't think he did enough for nuclear disarmament. We'll see where this goes, however.

My uninformed guess is that it will be framed not unlike the Iran deal: Sanctions against Russia are removed in exchange for disarmament.

Only that Russia will probably reduce its arsenal by destroying the most ancient weapons systems, those that are about to be retired anyway out of safety and budgetary concerns. The more I think about it, the more I believe Putin is playing with house money.
 
Trump: "Chris Steele's dossier is all fake news, everybody! CNN is fake news!" <Proceeds in real life to act exactly according to the intelligence found in Chris Steele's dossier, as if it were a play-by-play.>
 
Seems like the title should be "Trump tries to find excuses to remove sanctions on Russia".
That's how I read it as well.

I assume "we're avoiding nuclear war" is going to be the excuse to let Russia shit slide in the next few years. We already saw it during the campaign, mind you.
 

jelly

Member
Lift sanctions, we are taking Ukraine, Poland, Finland but those Nukes take a while to disarm, I'll get back to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom