Petition seeks to prevent Trump from speaking in The Hall of Presidents at Disney's Magic Kingdom

ApolloAndy said:

Wait, really? There's no objective, non-partisan way to measure if someone is tanking the economy or engaging in conflicts of interest or violating the constitution?

My response before I got to GoBucks response was going to be:

I thought we were discussing a dangerous president. One that sucks at governing is a totally different thing. We've had lots of bad presidents, but everyone is saying this is different.

I took 'wolf' to mean something different entirely and far beyond, "the economy got worse under his watch."

And that objective, non-partisan way exists - the courts.

So when Trump oversteps and does something like the immigrant ban, they step in and keep stuff in check. He tried to be a wolf. They smacked him on the nose.

Checks and balances, complex system, all those things I've been pointing to.

But GoBucks response is way better than mine, so just refer to it.

I still think people looking at the policies hes trying to put in place as a metric for how bad or good he is is incorrect. Who's to say that any other right leaning president wouldn't have had a similar travel ban thingy? It's not the executive orders or political stuff that is the issue.

Undermining the press (whom I've said have done this country a GREAT disservice thru this whole election cycle, btw) and blatant lies about undisputed truths are dangerous. Where are the checks and balances there? I'm not talking about other politicians rebuking him, no one is able to stop him and his administration from lying, because no one administration has ever had that, except for the job the press does. And this administration seems intent to squash then out. I dont like how that's playing out. His political policies don't matter much at this point. But the blatant alternative facts and what he's doing to the press is very concerning.

And if Trump is a wolf (whether he needs to do anything actually showing he is or if just the threat is sufficient), what do we do about it?

I think that's why you have so many liberals are freaking out. They can't really do anything about it, and that's why so many conservatives freaked out over Obama, they could't remove him from office. Again, this is politics as usual.

The real danger is the lies in what Trump says. That white nationalists feel it's okay to come out of the closest again, that a fellow party member makes a speech saying he's concerned about a dictatorship, that simple safety precautions aren't being followed with sensitive information, that our own intelligence community may or may not be holding back info because they can't trust our president (regardless of whether that's true or made up, it's damaging to even have been said about our country), these are the dangerous unprecedented things, not just the signs of inadequacy.

It's not the politics. It's these things that only find precedence with world leaders whom history has not remembered for their unifying and peaceful nature, that are the problem.

Lord Gonchar said:

My response before I got to GoBucks response was going to be:

I thought we were discussing a dangerous president. One that sucks at governing is a totally different thing. We've had lots of bad presidents, but everyone is saying this is different.

I took 'wolf' to mean something different entirely and far beyond, "the economy got worse under his watch."

Point conceeded. Remove "tanks the economy" and replace with "cares more about friends in Russia than American people."

GoBucks89 said:

There's no objective, non-partisan way to measure if someone is tanking the economy or engaging in conflicts of interest or violating the constitution?

Some very salient and well reasoned points.

I completely agree, but there has to be some way to try to sort it out, right? I mean, there is some objective reality and we can't just throw our hands up and say "It's impossible to tell because a) it's complicated and b) the competing narratives add another layer of complication on top." I mean, I would say "Defer to the experts who spend lifetimes trying to untangle all the variables" but they have been roped into the competing narratives (possibly because they came to a conclusion that wasn't agreeable to one side, possibly because they have a bias, possibly both).

I think there's a way, but it involves the citizens of this country ending their tendency to be so obscenely dramatic about everything and to lose the obsessions that drive the news media to throw a bunch of talking heads on the air who bicker back and forth with each other, and instead let them go back to the job they should be doing which is, you know, reporting.

Digressing: I'd say that a key part* of the political climate these days is the need of news organizations to fill 24 hours of tv each day (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBSN), as well as to constantly generate online content.

Talking heads on satellite feeds are a cheap way to fill some of that time. Which means the networks aren't reporting news but airing partisan debates. (Whatever your opinion on Rachel Maddow may be, she does tend to avoid those debating heads in screens business and talks with her guests.)

It doesn't help that the relationship between broadcast news organizations and political leaders is rather riddled with conflicts. Sunday chat shows as exhibit A. Challenge the guests too directly, and they won't appear on the show again.

I occasionally joke that "[name of journalist] just came dangerously close to committing journalism," when they actually ask probing questions or try to press someone for details.

*Not the key part. A key part.

I completely agree, but there has to be some way to try to sort it out, right? I mean, there is some objective reality and we can't just throw our hands up and say "It's impossible to tell because a) it's complicated and b) the competing narratives add another layer of complication on top."

There are ways to sort it out (at least get closer to objective reality). Unfortunately, the noise in our political process at this point (which has been building for decades) makes it incredibly difficult. Add to that our collective gnat sized attention spans (if you can't say something in 140 characters, many people don't think its worth saying) and its even more difficult. "In depth" discussions at this point rarely consist of more than 5-10 minutes of discussion.

In terms of the three issues you raise, the Supreme Court comes about as close as an objective arbiter of constitutionality. More light would be best defense against conflicts of interest. There aren't any economic panels which really offer what the Supreme Court brings to the economy. I think better economics education would also help. If more people understood basic economics, politicians would have a much harder time peddling the garbage they spew every day in terms of the economy.

On the concept of "truthful not neutral" I am not sure that gets us to where we should be. I haven't read the linked article (so maybe there is more to it) but the concept on its face is lacking. For any given situation, there are x facts/factors which are relevant. I can select any group of those x facts/factors and truthfully report on each but paint a totally misleading picture of the situation. So neutrality is important as well. Big struggles there though are short attention spans and limited time to cover issues. Need to narrow discussion (omitting some facts/factors in the process) and bias will often factor into which facts/factors are omitted).

I don't think it's as complicated as you suggest. Amanpour, when she talks more about this (her Daily Show interview was pretty solid), makes the point that there are situations where there is a clear moral position worth taking. She brings up the war in Bosnia, where there was a desire to cover both sides of the conflict as equals, though clearly the practice of ethnic cleansing made it pretty clear who the bad guys were. In the context of making things up, I don't see any reason to cover that as necessarily neutral. When you claim the sky is green and you can clearly observe that it's blue, that doesn't require some declaration of neutrality.

slithernoggin said:

Digressing: I'd say that a key part* of the political climate these days is the need of news organizations to fill 24 hours of tv each day (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBSN), as well as to constantly generate online content.

I think it's still a choice. Remember when HLN was "Headline News?" It was basically the same cycle of stuff every 15 minutes, updated when there was something new to tell. I loved that format. I could watch for 15 minutes any time of day, get the news and move on.

Hell, I'm old enough to remember SNC*, which was what prompted CNN to create Headline News.

A few weeks ago I was annoying conservatives on Facebook, and one fellow complained that he had to go to five whole different websites for his news. I like being able to quickly check out different websites and make my own opinion.

We have a President who talks about what happened last night in Sweden, who, if he had taken his security briefing would know that 'what happened' last night happened in a Pakistan city with a similar name. What he says shouldn't be taken at face value.

*Yes. That old. Get off my lawn.

The idea of be truthful but not necessarily neutral when there is a clear moral position to take but just truthful when there isn't sounds better to me. Though most of what the media discusses day to day doesn't involve a clear moral position and thus the "not neutral" concept wouldn't be relevant much of the time. And you run the risk with the approach of finding clear moral positions when they don't exist simply because you want to advocate on a given issue rather than report on it at which point the "truthful not neutral" concept falls apart.

And as I haven't advocated for making things up, my only response to your green sky comment is: Huh?

That wasn't directed at you. I was being abstract. :)

Lord Gonchar said:
I thought we were discussing a dangerous president. One that sucks at governing is a totally different thing. We've had lots of bad presidents, but everyone is saying this is different.

It is different, unless someone can point to another POTUS and administration who pathologically lied to the voting public, and de-legitimized as "fake news" anyone reporting on them in a way they didn't like.

What checks and balances exist to keep that in check, especially in such a partisan environment?

Josh Marshall had a nice piece at TPM* recently: the gist being we have a President and administration who want to tear down the very institutions and concepts they're running. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos "wouldn't mind" working herself out of a job. Steve Bannon, well, Bannon's agenda is well known to anyone with Internet access.

He noted that, while it's a slight chance, there's still the chance that people so devoted to underminig the Federal government can actually succeed.

*Yes, it's a damn liberal website.

The check and balance on each branch of the federal government is the other two branches of the federal government. And with respect to the legislative and executive branches its elections every 2/4/6 years.

The president is limited in what he can do without Congress. My initial concern when people started talking about Trump (as a successful businessman) being president was business is very different than government. Top down approaches in business can be very successful. Government is much more like herding cats.

"Fake news" claims are checked and balanced by real news. But if the US media had a pristine reputation for truth, honesty and impartiality prior to November 2016, Trump likely isn't elected and claims of "fake news" fall on deaf ears. But for years (long before Trump) I have had dem and repub friends forward to me news items which can only be viewed (after 10 seconds on Google) as fake. But they gleefully buy into it because its consistent with their world view. Only thing you can do in those instances is point out the fakeness and hope the next time they spend 10 seconds on Google themselves. I know I stopped getting those forwards from 2-3 friends after pointing out the fakeness. Would like to hope they check the stories first but my guess is they just dropped me from their "liked minded forwards group."

From what I have seen, it appears that the media is now being more careful about what they say and is actually providing sources for what they say. Good ways to counter "fake news" claims. I don't see that as a negative. Will claims of "fake news" still be lobbied and will some people still fall for it? Yes, but there is only so much you can do.

The sad thing is that the media have only themselves to blame for the whole fake news claims. Granted, Trump is trying his best to undermine a free press, and that's not good. But they've been more concerned with ratings and opinions than news for far too long. I'd hoped getting caught with their pants down on the election results would change things, but nope.

GoBucks89 said:

. Government is much more like herding cats.

Best line in a long time.

Tekwardo said:
...they've been more concerned with ratings and opinions than news for far too long. I'd hoped getting caught with their pants down on the election results would change things, but nope.

Warning: there's a yes, but ahead.

Yes, I agree. Major media, local media, etc are more concerned with ratings and opinions.

But, they're owned by huge corporations, by and large. NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox are owned by conglomerates. Odds are one of your local tv stations is owned or managed by Sinclair (not part of the liberal media; a very conservative company); the company is running a gazbillion stations across the country. If the news division doesn't make its numbers, it suffers. Which doesn't make for good journalism.

And don't get me started on access to politicians. Oh, wait, I just got me started. :-)

I would pay good money (and I'm the guy who's so cheap he bought clearance sushi at Walgreens) to see Chuck Todd or Matt Lauer or whoever rip a politician to shreds by presenting facts and demanding answers; but they can't risk losing access to politicians for the network by being too aggressive.

I think reading these posts I find it interesting in how people define 'checks and balances' in government.

When you pair how 'the media' provides 'checks and balances' to Trump, you are doing it wrong. The media isn't part of our government. It's PROTECTED from our government. It cannot be shut down, despite Trump's cries of 'fake news.' Same with protests, same with guns, same with Church, so on and so forth. All of those are PROTECTED from our government and don't add any 'checks and balances' to any part of government.

For those who understand how government really works, they are less fearful and less reactive when Trump says or 'does' something. For those who don't understand: there are three branches. Executive (President), Legislative (House and Senate) and Judicial (Supreme Court). That's it. Legislative writes the laws and can override Executive vetoes of their bills, Executive can decide to pass the law and decides how to enforce the laws (i.e. Executive orders), and Judicial decides if the laws and how they are enforced are 'constitutional.' This makes it impossible for Trump to make up a law, or decide that pink is now brown.

And Trump is totally qualified to be President. All he had to be was an American Citizen and be at least 35 years old. That's it.

Of course that doesn't mean he'll be a good or bad President. That remains to be seen.

Tekwardo said:

But they've been more concerned with ratings and opinions than news for far too long.

Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987. Not coincidental...

The Fairness Doctrine's demise was premature, but it existed in part because of the scarcity of mass-media and in the context of broadcasting. You couldn't just get a broadcast license because you felt like it, because there wasn't enough spectrum for that. As such, the FCC (rightfully) considered a broadcast license a public resource that should therefore serve the public. The courts agreed, often unanimously, that this did not conflict with the First Amendment. By the time it was reversed, it was reasonable to argue that diversity of ideas in the marketplace was possible as broadcast outlets were complimented by cable TV and a very robust print media industry. It's even less necessary today because of the Internet.

HeyIsntThatRob? said:
Of course that doesn't mean he'll be a good or bad President. That remains to be seen.

I think that ship has long since sailed.

Regardless, as it's been said in this thread countless times, what a president can or can't legally do is secondary to the influence that they can have. Poorly chosen words can move markets worldwide, frighten allies and enemies into doing scary things and domestically empower people to do things otherwise morally marginalized by our culture. There is not a "no harm, no foul" argument to be made.