*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9726
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9320 on: January 10, 2022, 01:10:51 AM »
Imagine going on a rant about the Twitter poster to try to cover up PBS's  fail.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9396
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9321 on: January 10, 2022, 01:26:17 AM »
Imagine hating vaccines, but loving Trump who loves vaccines.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2763
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9322 on: January 10, 2022, 02:27:32 AM »
Imagine going on a rant about the Twitter poster to try to cover up PBS's fail.

This is only a "fail" if you accept Cernovich's "haha the liberal media tried to get this activist to bash Trump and he totally refused to play along, get wrecked liberals!" framing of what happened as being accurate. Taken as its own thing, the video clip is a perfectly normal exchange between a journalist and an anti-authoritarian activist, who would naturally take the time to stress that wannabe strongmen like Trump don't emerge from a vacuum and that America does indeed currently have a large-scale problem with authoritarianism. Very few liberals or leftists would disagree with either of those notions. Now, I don't know if Ai Weiwei, the man being interviewed, continued to go down that reasonable route during this segment, or if he started earnestly insisting that it's actually liberals and leftists who are the problem in America and not Trump. Without knowing, all we have to go by is how Cernovich framed this exchange, and so it's perfectly relevant to point out that he's a liar, a charlatan, and a smear merchant.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Re: Trump
« Reply #9323 on: January 10, 2022, 04:36:14 AM »
imagine watching a selectively edited clip from an interview instead of just watching the interview.



I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9726
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9324 on: January 10, 2022, 09:35:31 AM »
I watched it again in the video above @15:36 where she still tries to get him to call Trump an authoritarian, and he still says that he is not, and still states that the politically correct crowd are the authoritarians.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3005
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9325 on: January 10, 2022, 06:54:11 PM »
What's hilarious about the twitter clip is the poster prefaced it with, "PBS hosted an expert on authoritative regimes to bash Trump."

The clip is 53 seconds long halfway into a 27 minute interview. And the only mention of Trump. And it was a question that actually seemed appropriate given the quote cited from his book. How is that hosting an expert to bash Trump? Ai goes on to say you need a system to support an authoritarian. Thankfully, our system didn't back him.

Additionally, Ai goes on regarding the West (around 17:30), "We are not caring about the global situation...eventually, all the policies and politics has to be examined under the global situation...The failure of the West lacking of vision, lacking of compassion in dealing with refugee situation, climate change and also the war in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Seems like a rather damning sentiment that goes against Trumpian "America First" doctrine.

In Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaigns and presidency (2017–2021), Trump used the phrase as a slogan, emphasizing the United States' withdrawal from international treaties and organizations.[4][5][6] "America First" was the official foreign policy doctrine of the Trump administration.

He threatened to pull out of NATO and totally dissed the UN (Which they probably deserved some of). And we don't even need to go near climate change.

Ai is a very smart guy and has seen/experienced a lot. To say the 27 minute interview was a PBS Trump bash-fest is just an out-and-out lie.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9726
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9326 on: January 10, 2022, 08:33:38 PM »
Nonsense. It can take about 10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start. Obviously one of those questions was "is Trump an authoritarian like your book warned??", which backfired on them embarrassingly.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9396
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9327 on: January 10, 2022, 09:32:21 PM »
Nonsense. It can take about 10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start. Obviously one of those questions was "is Trump an authoritarian like your book warned??", which backfired on them embarrassingly.

Not as embarrassing as being a Trump supporter who also hates vaccines.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3005
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9328 on: January 10, 2022, 09:36:19 PM »
Nonsense. It can take about 10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start. Obviously one of those questions was "is Trump an authoritarian like your book warned??", which backfired on them embarrassingly.

Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

And the question stemming from his book seems appropriate. Regarding the directives from Mao, messages distributed every night to the masses, Ai wrote:

"These messages served a function similar to Donald Trump's late night tweets while in office. They were the direct communication of a leader's thoughts to his devoted followers, enhancing the sanctity of his authority."

Seems like a pretty direct comparison to Mao. And guess what, Mao was an authoritarian. And Ai's response to whether Trump was was no, you need a system to be an authoritarian, not just 1 guy. The only thing that didn't make Trump an authoritarian is that he didn't have the required system in place.

All in all, it wasn't 27 minutes of PBS Trump bashing. 60 seconds, if even at best.

Typical of your cherry-picking ways - The only thing you got out of a 1/2 hour interview with a very interesting individual is a minute of dialogue.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9726
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9329 on: January 10, 2022, 09:40:28 PM »
What an invalid argument. There may have been more about Trump if the expert had answered the way the host wanted him to answer. However, he did not. Obviously it's best to move on if the narrative is not going your way.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2763
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9330 on: January 10, 2022, 09:49:40 PM »
If an anti-authoritarian dissident who's clearly no fan of Trump taking a moment during an interview to decline bashing Trump in favor of making a broader point about what he feels is the rise of authoritarianism in America is what Trump fans are interpreting as a major embarrassment for the media and a victory for the MAGA movement, then I'm embarrassed for them. It's just sad.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1711
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9331 on: January 10, 2022, 10:16:35 PM »
What an invalid argument. There may have been more about Trump if the expert had answered the way the host wanted him to answer. However, he did not. Obviously it's best to move on if the narrative is not going your way.

So now you’re saying that the interview could have been really bad if they asked different questions and if the guest gave different answers? Lul PBS pwned rekt 42069

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6817
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9332 on: January 11, 2022, 05:54:45 AM »
What an invalid argument. There may have been more about Trump if the expert had answered the way the host wanted him to answer. However, he did not. Obviously it's best to move on if the narrative is not going your way.

So now you’re saying that the interview could have been really bad if they asked different questions and if the guest gave different answers? Lul PBS pwned rekt 42069

I like how fast he flipped from "horrible trump bash interview" to "if would have been bad if they did what I said they did."
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9726
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9333 on: January 11, 2022, 06:05:41 AM »
It would have been good for PBS if he had ranted about Trump like they wanted him to. Unfortunately that narrative was not expressed and it was an embarrassing fail for them.

It's also pretty embarrassing how there are a range of excuses here ranging from the length it was discussed to where it was discussed in the video, to maybe the video was manipulated by a republican.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2022, 08:26:08 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9396
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9334 on: January 11, 2022, 06:17:07 AM »
 >o<G
It would have been good for PBS if he had ranted about Trump like they wanted him too. Unfortunately that narrative was not expressed and it was an embarrassing fail for them.

It's also pretty embarrassing how there are a range of excuses here ranging from the length it was discussed to where it was discussed in the video, to maybe the video was manipulated by a republican.

Did you know Trump is a dyed in the wool vaccine advocate?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3005
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9335 on: January 11, 2022, 06:45:54 AM »
It would have been good for PBS if he had ranted about Trump like they wanted him too. Unfortunately that narrative was not expressed and it was an embarrassing fail for them.

It's also pretty embarrassing how there are a range of excuses here ranging from the length it was discussed to where it was discussed in the video, to maybe the video was manipulated by a republican.

How is that you seem to be able to divine what is "good" for PBS? As well, with your extensive experience in broadcast journalism you've claimed:

It can take about 10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start.

Interesting how much you think you know. Talk about a pathetic argument. It takes 15 minutes to get to a "real question"? ::) I guess 60 minutes never gets to a "real question" considering each segment is 15 minutes long.
Oh wait, maybe it's 10 minutes. That means, in the Ai interview, there were about 5-6 minutes of "real questions" before we got to the single Trump question.

Talk about a desperate grasp for straws. Wow, yours really is the most ridiculous argument, literally making whatever shit up and you think people will actually take it seriously.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9726
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9336 on: January 11, 2022, 06:54:59 AM »
Incorrect. You admitted yourself that the first fifteen minutes was introduction and background about himself and about his work.

Quote from: stack
Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

When they got off the background stuff one of the first things they did was to ask him to expand on Trump and his authoritarianism. That is what they wanted to talk about after going over his background, and even had graphic prepared with a quote from his book that seemed to suggest that Trump was an authoritarian.

Unfortunately, it was an immediate fail for them and they moved on from the topic.

It is pretty typical of your arguments that you need a dozen different excuses to explain something, like a child would argue. Notice that you are making up a continuous series of excuses of where the question was in the video, and how long they stayed on it, and that they really wanted to talk about other things, to avoid understanding that after the background segment they tried to set him up to talk about Trump being an authoritarian and it resulted in egg on their face.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2022, 07:50:16 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3005
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9337 on: January 11, 2022, 08:55:43 AM »
Incorrect. You admitted yourself that the first fifteen minutes was introduction and background about himself and about his work.

Quote from: stack
Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

When they got off the background stuff one of the first things they did was to ask him to expand on Trump and his authoritarianism. That is what they wanted to talk about after going over his background, and even had graphic prepared with a quote from his book that seemed to suggest that Trump was an authoritarian.

Actually, there were questions about how his words about china are dangerous and how he feels about that. His thoughts on freedom of speech and such prior to the Trump question. And if you think that's "background" then I guess the question about Trump that came later was background too. As it was regarding the past when he was President and in a position to be an authoritarian and what Ai thought about that. And his answer was no, Trump was not an authoritarian because he didn't have a "system" to support him being an authoritarian.

He responds, "Well, I don't - You know, he - If you are authoritarian, you have to have a system supporting you. You cannot just be an authoritarian by yourself."

And, ummm, yeah, they prepared a graphic showing a quote from his book that led to the Trump question. They also created graphics for quotes from his book throughout the whole interview. So what's your point? Have you even watched the whole interview? It seems you haven't. Not surprising.

Unfortunately, it was an immediate fail for them and they moved on from the topic.

Why is it considered a fail? You're assuming that PBS would have considered the entire 27 minute interview a "win" if Ai had just said, "Yes, I think Trump is an authoritarian."? Did PBS state something that that would have been a "win" for them if he had? How do you know what PBS wanted? What makes you think you know what PBS wanted?

It is pretty typical of your arguments that you need a dozen different excuses to explain something, like a child would argue. Notice that you are making up a continuous series of excuses of where the question was in the video, and how long they stayed on it, and that they really wanted to talk about other things, to avoid understanding that after the background segment they tried to set him up to talk about Trump being an authoritarian and it resulted in egg on their face.

What makes you think you know what PBS wanted?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9396
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9338 on: January 12, 2022, 03:05:53 PM »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: Trump
« Reply #9339 on: January 12, 2022, 03:50:52 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/12/1072204478/donald-trump-npr-interview-presidential-election-lies-vaccines

Trumps recommends vaccination and continues The Big Lie.
He is properly mental.
Surely the Republicans wouldn't make him their candidate in 2024...would they?!
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis