I think the media has done a terrible job covering Trump. As our news model has changed to more click-based, all outlets saw him as a goldmine. Anything Trump-related, especially something designed to stoke outrage, is automatic huge engagement. So, everyday they took the most innocuous things (stuff that was out of the ordinary, but not necessarily bad) and ran stories that made it seem like the sky was falling. This constant barrage of, "Trump bad!" understandably turned people off and made them distrustful of the media. And then when Trump actually did things that were quite bad, the media had lost credibility and it could not convince people that this dude is actually proposing some very anti-democratic and unconstitutional things.
Trump supporters, how do you square this?
- Thread starter CP87
- Start date
I think the media has done a terrible job covering Trump. As our news model has changed to more click-based, all outlets saw him as a goldmine. Anything Trump-related, especially something designed to stoke outrage, is automatic huge engagement. So, everyday they took the most innocuous things (stuff that was out of the ordinary, but not necessarily bad) and ran stories that made it seem like the sky was falling. This constant barrage of, "Trump bad!" understandably turned people off and made them distrustful of the media. And then when Trump actually did things that were quite bad, the media had lost credibility and it could not convince people that this dude is actually proposing some very anti-democratic and unconstitutional things.
Fryowa
Administrator
2 year term limits on congress/senate members, 4 year term limits on president for stability, maximum $60,000 salary, lifetime ban on owning any traded investments other than index funds (no individual stocks, no “managed” mutual funds, etc.), lifetime ban on holding a seat or executive position within a public or private corporation over $100,000,000 per year in revenue, 10 years of publicly-disclosed audits and publicly-disclosed tax returns. If you have the desire to make a difference—whatever side you’re on—you can still make a living and if it’s not enough money for you, then you aren’t someone who’s putting the good of the country first.
No, I’m not kidding. You can still pay bills, own a home, own your vehicles, have retirement accounts. The only people you’d get to run for office would be those who have a conviction do what they think is right to make that sort of commitment. In return you get lifetime deductible-free health insurance paid for.
I fit those criteria other than being very slightly over the income limits. I’d have to take a small pay cut but other than that I hold no positions on boards and I already only invest in no-load index funds for my retirement. You might say many qualified people wouldn’t run, but you’d still get wealthy people to do it. They just wouldn’t be able to have a lifetime job and wouldn’t be able to be bought out. You’d still get millionaire lawyers and business owners, etc., but they wouldn’t be doing it for money or power.
Being a politician was never intended to be made a lifelong career out of, and was never intended to be something to be made rich and powerful from. Until you remove the opportunity to become a career lawmaker and incentive for corruption—there is no fix my friend. None at all.
Guess who makes those rules, though…
Couldn't agree more.
I think people are going to find out during the next election that what went down the last two elections had nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with where things went with social media and click media. During the next election, we will hear "this guy is worse than Trump" a million times.
Two things here. Arnold is the guy who said "F your freedoms" during covid, so im glad he'0us not on team Trump. Second, he seems completely swayed by January 6th, which adds to my point of when one side gains everything by an event and the other side loses everything from the same event, you might want to question who caused said event. You can call it conspiracy theories all you want, but there was nothing to gain from Trump on that day "unless they brought guns". Yet there was everything to gain for democrats. When deciding if a conspiracy has legs, you have to ask who stood to gain what. The answer to that question makes me believe (or not believe) the conspiracy. Trump gains nothing 100 out of 100 times and democrats gain a lot 100 out of 100 times in that event. Arnold's post shows what they gained and what Trump lost. Most obvious false flag event ever.The Arnold has spoken:
x.com
x.com
Yes but no income tax would make up for that if that's the route they went.
He hurt the value of Twitter through advertising because he stood up for free speech. That is a hit he was willing to take. The point is, he runs Twitter way more efficiently, which is the more relevant comparison.Being really good at one thing (and he is a really good engineer and entrepreneur) does NOT make you really good at everything. He has absolutely murdered the value of twitter, and for all of his talent, he is erratic and either gullible or not especially concerned with the truth.
Elon Musk has yet to reverse X's downward financial spiral
Plummeting ad revenue has hurt the platform formerly known as Twitter since the billionaire bought it two years ago.www.deseret.com
Six Lies Elon Musk Believed (in the last 24 hours)
I just think the information environment is so bad right now. It is dizzying. I have always felt that the lying when you have a large audience will eventuall...www.youtube.com
We will never know because the Democrat party choose to skip the democratic process.
That would be a fair point if there wasn't a full on attack the second he won the primary. They just all learned he was a terrible person at the exact same time?
