their biases confirmed. — NOS4A2

What biases, nose4? Substantive answer only, please, else I give the the "dismissive" response.

That makes sense.

Not only “pinko-liberals”, but snobs and champagne socialists as well. It’s no strange wonder that the unmitigated consternation of antiTrumpism is magnified by the voices of celebrities, corporate public relations and coastal elites. All they have to do is turn on the television to have their biases confirmed. — NOS4A2

Sure. For some the fear and/or worry of andor about Trump is magnified - in part at least - by confirmation bias.

The consternation of Trump is also magnified as a direct result of a multitude of different personalities sharing similar thoughts and/or concerns regarding Trump. Many different people from many different walks of life have openly voiced consternation of Trump. These people differ across the board, including but certainly not limited to, those mentioned in the above quote.

If what's being confirmed is true... well. It's not always such a bad thing after-all. True thought/belief makes the best ground.

Seriously speaking, Trump is one of the worst possible deal makers ever, but the perfect example how it doesn't matter at all as some Americans put on a pedestal and worship any person that has the balls to outright lie with ease about his awesome abilities and success. It simply doesn't matter that the person is full of bullshit. If the person is against what these people don't like, anything goes. The lies are totally OK when they anger the people who you hate.

Besides, the mantra of yelling out loud how astoundingly rich and successful one is has this mesmerizing effect on one part of the American crowd that takes these people with a narcissistic personality disorder as quasi-religious saints, victors of the American dream, and disregard totally the lies, because they simply are awed by the "balls" that these person have in their self-promotion. Anyone voicing the obvious facts that these people are liars and charlatans are simply seen as jealous 'un-American' pinko-liberals, who don't believe in the American dream. — ssu

This rings true...

The notion of "political correctness" began falling out of fashion for good reason, but one of them was not as a means to exonerate unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour until folk like Trump began to use it for exactly such a thing.

Denying/dismissing political correctness does not offer license for otherwise unacceptable behavior.

It’s also magnified by the worst kind of sensationalism. Up until the election and beyond, Trump was compared to every brutal dictator in recent history, from Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, to Mugabe—hundreds of millions of victims between them—even if Trump has never engaged in any injustice or abuse of power. Whether it was the press, late night television, magazines, politicians, comedians, we never had a shortage of people crying wolf, and never a shortage of people believing them.

What biases, nose4? Substantive answer only, please, else I give the the "dismissive" response. — tim wood

No answer?

even if Trump has never engaged in any injustice or abuse of power. — NOS4A2

What does this mean? It must be either that Trump never... - absurd on its face, or that indeed he has, did, does, and will continue. Has it occurred to you that you're the victim, here?

You're the victim. Stop being the victim.

Here’s a link to an article that I read back when the Trumpian nightmare began:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump

Until the late 1980s, 'political correctness' was used exclusively within the left, and almost always ironically

“their biases confirmed” = confirmation bias. Stop being the fool.

It also has to do with the war on language itself.

George Carlin makes a good case against political correctness here. It’s worth a listen.

“their biases confirmed” = confirmation bias. Stop being the fool. — NOS4A2

Incoherent non sequitur. So [mod censor] nose4. That's all the reply you're worth.

It’s also magnified by the worst kind of sensationalism. Up until the election and beyond, Trump was compared to every brutal dictator in recent history, from Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, to Mugabe—hundreds of millions of victims between them—even if Trump has never engaged in any injustice or abuse of power. Whether it was the press, late night television, magazines, politicians, comedians, we never had a shortage of people crying wolf, and never a shortage of people believing them. — NOS4A2

Begging the question(regarding whether or not Trump has abused his power over people) and a bit ironic(as a result of the characterization of "the worst kind" of sensationalism).

Not only “pinko-liberals”, but snobs and champagne socialists as well. It’s no strange wonder that the unmitigated consternation of antiTrumpism is magnified by the voices of celebrities, corporate public relations and coastal elites. All they have to do is turn on the television to have their biases confirmed. — NOS4A2

How you depict the Anti-Trump crowd is quite similar how the Anti-Bernie / Anti-AOC etc. camp could be described..just coming from another perspective.

This is the way tribalism spreads.

You see, at first you don't like some politician because of his or her agenda and views. At the second stage you feel disgust not only about the politician, but also at those who support publicly him or her in the media and the party the politician is a member of. And finally on the third stage of tribalism it is the voters who vote for the politician are the one's you start hating. And at that stage a republic starts to come apart because you aren't just angry at politicians, celebrities or the talking heads on TV, you are angry at your fellow citizens, your neighbors and even family members.

This rabbit hole you can go down to worse places: after this it's the vilification of the other, then the portrayal of the other being an enemy and the dehumanization of your fellow citizens.

How you depict the Anti-Trump crowd is quite similar how the Anti-Bernie / Anti-AOC etc. camp could be described..just coming from another perspective.

This is the way tribalism spreads.

You see, at first you don't like some politician because of his or her agenda and views. At the second stage you feel that disgust not only about the politician, but also at those who support publicly him or her in the media and the party the politician is a member of. And finally on the third stage of tribalism it is the voters who vote for the politician are the one's you start hating. And at that stage a republic starts to come apart because you aren't just angry at politicians, you are angry at your fellow citizens, your neighbors and even family members.

This rabbit hole you can go down to worse places: after this it's the vilification of the other, then the portrayal of the other being an enemy and the dehumanization of your fellow citizens. — ssu

Indeed. The Hillary camp dove head first into exactly that. Belittling not only Trump supporters but also Bernie supporters prior to. Fatal mistake. Many feminists do the same thing towards all males. Another fatal mistake. Many minority feminists do the same thing towards all white males(anyone other than another white male). Racists do the same.

It all starts with the disgust part. Different is disgusting.

So if you had a kid who took after you and wasn’t bright, would you prefer that teachers call him stupid or ‘academically challenged’?

Very fair point. We should always be wary of the growing identity politics as of late. The white nationalists are the worst of its manifestations so far, but it’s still growing. Before long everyone will be categorized into their subgroups and specificities whether they like it or not.

It’s a great picture. Of course, the president can declassify whatever he pleases. — NOS4A2

It's not about the legality of it, it's about the wisdom of it. Things are classified – and declassified – for good reason. What was the reason for declassifying this one? Did he discuss it with his intelligence/military advisors? That's unlikely given that it wasn't the raw image but a photo of it, apparently taken from a phone. And as explained here, the photo provides information about where the photo came from (USA 224), its capabilities, and provides foreign nations with information that may allow them to reverse-engineer the specs required to reproduce the technology.

He probably did it for no good reason at all. The man's an idiot.

All of it conjecture. There is no wisdom in assuming motives.

It appears NPR and various internet sleuths are providing information about where it came from,

Sharpie-gate

The anti-Trump press, including their ideological brethren in late night comedy, spent the better part of a week lambasting the president for an apparent sharpie mark on a map.

On Sunday, the president tweeted that hurricane Dorian might hit Alabama. This was contradicted by the National Weather Service, which claimed in another tweet it would not hit Alabama.

During a later Whitehouse update on Dorian, Trump held up the National Weather Service map whereupon the offending mark was visible, crudely extending the predicted path to Alabama. This small, hilarious gesture sent preening journalists into fits of outrage on Twitter. It was Sharpie-gate.

To them, this was evidence of Trump’s unmitigated narcissism. Some even said the act was criminal, as faking official forecasts is illegal. CNN dedicated hours of coverage to the scandal, dire chyrons like “As People Die, Trump Defends Presenting Doctored Map” were burned into viewers brains. Late night talk show hosts, as if regimented to mock the president (they are all democrats and democrat donors, after all) did so to their lapping audiences.

But it was all piffle.

The map with the sharpie mark on it was old and outdated—not only was it not hitting Alabama, it wasn’t going to land on Florida. Both Trump and the national weather service were wrong, except Trump isn’t the weather man here. Trump held up the map with a sharpie mark on it, but only briefly, and only to contrast with the new, updated information: the current trajectory of the hurricane and the FEMA response, which he spoke about at length for the next 7 minutes.

Did the press inform their viewers about the updated hurricane information and the government’s response? No. They left that part out, because they’d rather quibble about a sharpie mark on an outdated and invalid weather map that Trump briefly showed, sensationalizing that quibbling as news, and all to disguise to their viewers that Trump is actually doing a damn good job with these hurricanes.




CNN’s Yellow Journalism

Bumbling narcissist who is incapable of admitting any faults.

He seems to be getting worse lately. Perhaps dementia, or because he’s surrounded himself in Yes Men and we’re seeing the resulting groupthink fumbles.

all to disguise to their viewers that Trump is actually doing a damn good job with these hurricanes — NOS4A2

What is Trump doing "with" these Hurricanes?

You can hear it from the horse’s mouth by simply watching the update put out by the Whitehouse. You won’t find it on CNN.

You can hear it from the horse’s mouth by simply watching the update put out by the Whitehouse. You won’t find it on CNN. — NOS4A2

You apparently did watch it, so asking you is quicker.

I’m not sure why you’d want to take my word for it.

I’m not sure why you’d want to take my word for it. — NOS4A2

I'd take a lot of things over watching Trump talk for half an hour. So far that seems the only thing he's been doing. Is that what you meant by good job? That he gave a good talk?

If you’d rather avoid it that’s your problem, not mine. I just don’t understand how someone can be so willing to remain in ignorance.

I am ignorant of so many things, I need to be judicious in where I allocate my time. I did give you the opportunity to help out your fellow man by alleviating their ignorance. Alas, you refuse.

Yes, I refuse. I’m sure you’ll find some way to fill the void.

What is Trump doing "with" these Hurricanes? — Echarmion

He's running rings round them.

He's running rings round them. — unenlightened

Drawing rings around them.