Greta Thunberg

[brian ross]

Your idea of balance is to attack the ALP without worrying too much about what the Tories are up to.

That's an absolute lie, Brian, and this is precisely why many of your questions are not worth responding to. No matter what I say you judge me otherwise and then run off in your delusional little thought bubbles.

I judge you on what you post, Black Orchid, just as I hope you judge me on what I post (but I doubt that). I have posted what my personal politics are. Why are you so afraid to do similar?

[The4thEstate]

...................... I sit in the middle and swing depending on policy and NOT for the party, any party. Something you rusted-ons should consider. It's called balance.

Balance ...... I have heard of that concept.

Yeah, it used to be something that the U.S. media took pride in presenting.

Seems long ago. Most of today's so-called journalists behave like a branch of the Democratic Party.

For instance, thanks to a leaked recording, we now know that the New York Times was all in on the Russian collusion hoax, focused almost solely on attempting to bring down Trump:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/08/l ... to-racism/

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... cript.html

[The4thEstate]

I wonder what you think of rightist globalist sellouts, 4E?

Name a few and I'll tell you if I have an opinion of them.

Rupert Murdoch...

Nah, I wouldn't consider Murdoch a globalist sellout. He founded Fox News, which presents news and views that are the antithesis of the globalist perspective. Without Fox News cable news would be nothing but leftist propaganda.

In reality, the MSM is generally not Leftist or even Rightist. It uses the news to sell advertising which is how it makes it's money. If the audience prefers rightist stories, then it sells rightist stories.

Yeah sure, the MSM plays it totally down the middle.

Not totally, I will grant you but I believe your bias is self-evident, 4E. Downunder, the MSM is generally considered right-wing. In Russia, it is largely right-wing. In China, it is considered right-wing because it is state controlled. It is all relative. The world is not uniform in how it applies the left-right spectrum. In Russia, what is considered "right wing" would be considered "left-wing" in the US because it basically supports Communism.

The US is not the world, 4E. I do wish you'd wake up to that.

Really? Silly me, I thought the U.S. was the only country on the entire globe!

As for my "left/right" references ... well, if you prefer I can refer to it as "liberal/conservative." But I was told that these terms, well understood in the U.S., don't mean the same thing elsewhere in the world. So take your pick; I'm easy.

Anyway, it's not about any bias on my part. I already linked to the Harvard study showing how some of America's major media presented news that was 90 percent negative to Trump. Amazingly, Obama got considerably more favorable treatment from the same fawning reporters.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byro ... t-negative

[brian ross]

I wonder what you think of rightist globalist sellouts, 4E?

Name a few and I'll tell you if I have an opinion of them.

Rupert Murdoch...

Nah, I wouldn't consider Murdoch a globalist sellout. He founded Fox News, which presents news and views that are the antithesis of the globalist perspective. Without Fox News cable news would be nothing but leftist propaganda.

You may not but you're only looking at his domestic US enterprise. Outside the US he has been quite willing to be a Globalist. Your views on what constitutes "leftist" is as we have seen all too often, far more biased than what reality indicates, 4E.

In reality, the MSM is generally not Leftist or even Rightist. It uses the news to sell advertising which is how it makes it's money. If the audience prefers rightist stories, then it sells rightist stories.

Yeah sure, the MSM plays it totally down the middle.

Not totally, I will grant you but I believe your bias is self-evident, 4E. Downunder, the MSM is generally considered right-wing. In Russia, it is largely right-wing. In China, it is considered right-wing because it is state controlled. It is all relative. The world is not uniform in how it applies the left-right spectrum. In Russia, what is considered "right wing" would be considered "left-wing" in the US because it basically supports Communism.

The US is not the world, 4E. I do wish you'd wake up to that.

Really? Silly me, I thought the U.S. was the only country on the entire globe!

I could well believe that, 4E.

As for my "left/right" references ... well, if you prefer I can refer to it as "liberal/conservative." But I was told that these terms, well understood in the U.S., don't mean the same thing elsewhere in the world. So take your pick; I'm easy.

The US is rather unique in how it applies such terms, 4E. They don't translate well outside of the US context as a consequence simply because the rest of the world is a great deal more flexible in how it views such things. What I have always found interesting is how many Americans view the Nazis as being "left-wing" whereas the rest of the world views them as having been "right-wing". Perhaps its 'cause they actually experienced them whereas the US never really did.

Anyway, it's not about any bias on my part. I already linked to the Harvard study showing how some of America's major media presented news that was 90 percent negative to Trump. Amazingly, Obama got considerably more favorable treatment from the same fawning reporters.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byro ... t-negative

As I keep pointing out, it is all a matter of perception, 4E. Harvard is in American society so it looks at politics through a lense shaped by American society. I'm not saying that they or you are wrong, rather that you and they are perhaps mistaken, as is US society in general. The US tends to magnify politics and social elements to the extreme and attempts to paint them as being generally characteristics of either side of politics.

I am unsure why you believe Obama or any el Presidente' of the USA should be perfect. They aren't. Obama should be accorded a better deal than many on the right in US society allows but he was far from perfect. History will treat him much better than many Americans allow and it will I don't doubt, treat Trump much worse than many Americans believe.

[The4thEstate]

Nah, I wouldn't consider Murdoch a globalist sellout. He founded Fox News, which presents news and views that are the antithesis of the globalist perspective. Without Fox News cable news would be nothing but leftist propaganda.

You may not but you're only looking at his domestic US enterprise. Outside the US he has been quite willing to be a Globalist. Your views on what constitutes "leftist" is as we have seen all too often, far more biased than what reality indicates, 4E.

Actually, my views on what constitutes leftists are entirely consistent with the way they're defined in America.

Your mileage may vary.

The US is not the world, 4E. I do wish you'd wake up to that.

Really? Silly me, I thought the U.S. was the only country on the entire globe!

I could well believe that, 4E.

Just as I'm not surprised that you'd drag out the shopworn "America is not the world" cliche.

Can't remember the first time I heard that one, but I do recall the same words appearing in a sappy Finnish song from about 30 years ago.

As for my "left/right" references ... well, if you prefer I can refer to it as "liberal/conservative." But I was told that these terms, well understood in the U.S., don't mean the same thing elsewhere in the world. So take your pick; I'm easy.

The US is rather unique in how it applies such terms, 4E. They don't translate well outside of the US context as a consequence simply because the rest of the world is a great deal more flexible in how it views such things. What I have always found interesting is how many Americans view the Nazis as being "left-wing" whereas the rest of the world views them as having been "right-wing". Perhaps its 'cause they actually experienced them whereas the US never really did.

Well, naturally the international left isn't about to claim the Nazis, even though their name was short for "National Socialist Party."

Whether or not they were true socialists, their brutal, totalitarian government mimicked that of the most oppressive communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, and Cambodia under Pol Pot. And the commies were most definitely not right-wingers.

Anyway, it's not about any bias on my part. I already linked to the Harvard study showing how some of America's major media presented news that was 90 percent negative to Trump. Amazingly, Obama got considerably more favorable treatment from the same fawning reporters.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byro ... t-negative

As I keep pointing out, it is all a matter of perception, 4E. Harvard is in American society so it looks at politics through a lense shaped by American society. I'm not saying that they or you are wrong, rather that you and they are perhaps mistaken, as is US society in general. The US tends to magnify politics and social elements to the extreme and attempts to paint them as being generally characteristics of either side of politics.

That's all well and good, but on what basis are you asserting that Harvard and I are perhaps mistaken?

The Harvard study identified negative media stories about Trump. You can argue about what's left and what's right, but it's pretty hard to claim that a story that bashes Trump is, in fact, a report that cheerfully accents his positive traits.

I am unsure why you believe Obama or any el Presidente' of the USA should be perfect. They aren't. Obama should be accorded a better deal than many on the right in US society allows but he was far from perfect. History will treat him much better than many Americans allow and it will I don't doubt, treat Trump much worse than many Americans believe.

Since I never claimed that any president should be perfect, I'll have to file that comment under "strawman."

Regardless, I tend to believe that history will show that Trump did a great deal more for the average American than Obama, who was more concerned with pleasing the chardonnay-sipping lefties in Europe than improving the lives of working citizens in his own country.

Plus, his entire foreign policy seemed based on the notion that America can't apologize enough for itself. What kind of president inks his name to the Paris climate accord, given the fact that America was on the hook to pay $3 billion to some U.N. slush fund ... and that China, the world's greatest spewer of CO2, got a free pass for 15 years?

[Neferti]

Chicken Little!

[brian ross]

Nah, I wouldn't consider Murdoch a globalist sellout. He founded Fox News, which presents news and views that are the antithesis of the globalist perspective. Without Fox News cable news would be nothing but leftist propaganda.

You may not but you're only looking at his domestic US enterprise. Outside the US he has been quite willing to be a Globalist. Your views on what constitutes "leftist" is as we have seen all too often, far more biased than what reality indicates, 4E.

Actually, my views on what constitutes leftists are entirely consistent with the way they're defined in America.

Your mileage may vary.

Of course it will vary. Your milage is long overdue for a political realignment. Long over due.

I suspect you wouldn't recognise a real Leftist if they bit you on the bum, mate.

The US is not the world, 4E. I do wish you'd wake up to that.

Really? Silly me, I thought the U.S. was the only country on the entire globe!

I could well believe that, 4E.

Just as I'm not surprised that you'd drag out the shopworn "America is not the world" cliche.

Can't remember the first time I heard that one, but I do recall the same words appearing in a sappy Finnish song from about 30 years ago.

Well, I don't speak Finnish nor do I particularly follow popular music, so you're one up on me there, not that it's terribly important.

No, America isn't the world but Americans, like yourself, all too often act as if it was. America is special, America is exceptional. Yeah, sure, what ever floats your boat, 4E. Whatever fantasy you want to live in.

As for my "left/right" references ... well, if you prefer I can refer to it as "liberal/conservative." But I was told that these terms, well understood in the U.S., don't mean the same thing elsewhere in the world. So take your pick; I'm easy.

The US is rather unique in how it applies such terms, 4E. They don't translate well outside of the US context as a consequence simply because the rest of the world is a great deal more flexible in how it views such things. What I have always found interesting is how many Americans view the Nazis as being "left-wing" whereas the rest of the world views them as having been "right-wing". Perhaps its 'cause they actually experienced them whereas the US never really did.

Well, naturally the international left isn't about to claim the Nazis, even though their name was short for "National Socialist Party."

Perhaps that strange beast, the "International Left" knows the difference between a Fascist Party and a real Socialist Party, 4E, unlike you, as a member of the American Right. Naziism was a Fascist Party.

Whether or not they were true socialists, their brutal, totalitarian government mimicked that of the most oppressive communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, and Cambodia under Pol Pot. And the commies were most definitely not right-wingers.

All depends on how you define the matter of "left-right". All three of those regimes were more interested in the Cult of the Personality than they were necessarily in the plight of the people. Stalin invented it, Mao refined it and Pol Pot took it to it's ultimate form. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the Kims of the DPRK. Or is that 'cause el Presidente' Trump has decreed that their excesses must now be ignored and you, being a good little Trumpite, have obeyed?

Anyway, it's not about any bias on my part. I already linked to the Harvard study showing how some of America's major media presented news that was 90 percent negative to Trump. Amazingly, Obama got considerably more favorable treatment from the same fawning reporters.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byro ... t-negative

As I keep pointing out, it is all a matter of perception, 4E. Harvard is in American society so it looks at politics through a lense shaped by American society. I'm not saying that they or you are wrong, rather that you and they are perhaps mistaken, as is US society in general. The US tends to magnify politics and social elements to the extreme and attempts to paint them as being generally characteristics of either side of politics.

That's all well and good, but on what basis are you asserting that Harvard and I are perhaps mistaken?

The Harvard study identified negative media stories about Trump. You can argue about what's left and what's right, but it's pretty hard to claim that a story that bashes Trump is, in fact, a report that cheerfully accents his positive traits.

You are mistaken 'cause you have identified negative stories about Trump as meaning those stories are actually "Left" in tone/sentiment. They aren't, they're just anti-Trump. Trump does not personify the ideals of the Right. Indeed, I am unsure what Trump believes as against what Trump actively does.

I am unsure why you believe Obama or any el Presidente' of the USA should be perfect. They aren't. Obama should be accorded a better deal than many on the right in US society allows but he was far from perfect. History will treat him much better than many Americans allow and it will I don't doubt, treat Trump much worse than many Americans believe.

Since I never claimed that any president should be perfect, I'll have to file that comment under "strawman."

Regardless, I tend to believe that history will show that Trump did a great deal more for the average American than Obama, who was more concerned with pleasing the chardonnay-sipping lefties in Europe than improving the lives of working citizens in his own country.

Plus, his entire foreign policy seemed based on the notion that America can't apologize enough for itself. What kind of president inks his name to the Paris climate accord, given the fact that America was on the hook to pay $3 billion to some U.N. slush fund ... and that China, the world's greatest spewer of CO2, got a free pass for 15 years?

There are problems, I am willing to admit with the way the UN is funded. There are also problems with China being identified as a "developing nation". However, Trump appears to be rather a "no-nothing" in his attitudes towards the world. America is no longer isolated from the effects of the world economy, 4E and I think it is time Americans in general acknowledged that rather than continually deny it.

[The4thEstate]

Nah, I wouldn't consider Murdoch a globalist sellout. He founded Fox News, which presents news and views that are the antithesis of the globalist perspective. Without Fox News cable news would be nothing but leftist propaganda.

You may not but you're only looking at his domestic US enterprise. Outside the US he has been quite willing to be a Globalist. Your views on what constitutes "leftist" is as we have seen all too often, far more biased than what reality indicates, 4E.

Actually, my views on what constitutes leftists are entirely consistent with the way they're defined in America.

Your mileage may vary.

Of course it will vary. Your milage is long overdue for a political realignment. Long over due.

I suspect you wouldn't recognise a real Leftist if they bit you on the bum, mate.

And hopefully you won't try to prove it.

The US is not the world, 4E. I do wish you'd wake up to that.

Really? Silly me, I thought the U.S. was the only country on the entire globe!

I could well believe that, 4E.

Just as I'm not surprised that you'd drag out the shopworn "America is not the world" cliche.

Can't remember the first time I heard that one, but I do recall the same words appearing in a sappy Finnish song from about 30 years ago.

Well, I don't speak Finnish nor do I particularly follow popular music, so you're one up on me there, not that it's terribly important.

No, America isn't the world but Americans, like yourself, all too often act as if it was. America is special, America is exceptional. Yeah, sure, what ever floats your boat, 4E. Whatever fantasy you want to live in. [/quote]
Sounds like an inferiority complex to me.

No reason to be defensive just because some of us Yanks happen to have a favorable opinion of our own country. It's not a zero-sum game.

As for my "left/right" references ... well, if you prefer I can refer to it as "liberal/conservative." But I was told that these terms, well understood in the U.S., don't mean the same thing elsewhere in the world. So take your pick; I'm easy.

The US is rather unique in how it applies such terms, 4E. They don't translate well outside of the US context as a consequence simply because the rest of the world is a great deal more flexible in how it views such things. What I have always found interesting is how many Americans view the Nazis as being "left-wing" whereas the rest of the world views them as having been "right-wing". Perhaps its 'cause they actually experienced them whereas the US never really did.

Well, naturally the international left isn't about to claim the Nazis, even though their name was short for "National Socialist Party."

Perhaps that strange beast, the "International Left" knows the difference between a Fascist Party and a real Socialist Party, 4E, unlike you, as a member of the American Right. Naziism was a Fascist Party. [/quote]
Well, not everybody marches to your drummer. I find more wisdom in defining "left vs. right" as "statist vs. individual liberty," as described in this 2013 Forbes article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinsw ... a1a59c5f5c

"We need a rational way of setting up the political spectrum ... I have no objection to calling this spectrum 'Right vs. Left.' I have every possible objection to defining the extreme Right as fascism and the extreme Left as communism.

"Fascism and communism are two variants of statism. Both are forms of dictatorship. Neither one recognizes individual rights nor permits individual freedom. The differences are non-essential: fascism is racial statism and communism is statism of economic class."

Whether or not they were true socialists, their brutal, totalitarian government mimicked that of the most oppressive communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, and Cambodia under Pol Pot. And the commies were most definitely not right-wingers.

All depends on how you define the matter of "left-right". All three of those regimes were more interested in the Cult of the Personality than they were necessarily in the plight of the people. Stalin invented it, Mao refined it and Pol Pot took it to it's ultimate form. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the Kims of the DPRK. Or is that 'cause el Presidente' Trump has decreed that their excesses must now be ignored and you, being a good little Trumpite, have obeyed?

Anyway, it's not about any bias on my part. I already linked to the Harvard study showing how some of America's major media presented news that was 90 percent negative to Trump. Amazingly, Obama got considerably more favorable treatment from the same fawning reporters.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byro ... t-negative

As I keep pointing out, it is all a matter of perception, 4E. Harvard is in American society so it looks at politics through a lense shaped by American society. I'm not saying that they or you are wrong, rather that you and they are perhaps mistaken, as is US society in general. The US tends to magnify politics and social elements to the extreme and attempts to paint them as being generally characteristics of either side of politics.

That's all well and good, but on what basis are you asserting that Harvard and I are perhaps mistaken?

The Harvard study identified negative media stories about Trump. You can argue about what's left and what's right, but it's pretty hard to claim that a story that bashes Trump is, in fact, a report that cheerfully accents his positive traits.

You are mistaken 'cause you have identified negative stories about Trump as meaning those stories are actually "Left" in tone/sentiment. They aren't, they're just anti-Trump. Trump does not personify the ideals of the Right. Indeed, I am unsure what Trump believes as against what Trump actively does.[/quote]
Yeah right, and I suppose you also believe that Bernie Sanders doesn't personify the ideals of the Left.

You can try to split hairs on whether anti-Trump stories signify lefty bias, but when the same media gives a liberal president like Obama positive treatment -- and when Democrat scandals are minimized, whitewashed and/or ignored by the same media -- then it's a matter of "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck" ... what is it?

Trump may not be a traditional conservative (right-winger), but a great many of his policies and stances fit neatly into that category. Here, I'll throw you a bone and list a few:

1. Strong national sovereignty as opposed to open borders and taking in hordes of Third World refugees and asylum seekers.
2. Supreme Court judges that are firm Constitutionalists.
3. "America first" decisions when it comes to treaties that don't benefit the nation and its citizens, such as the Paris climate agreement, the TPP and Obama's Iran treaty.
4. American energy independence instead of a policy banning energy exploration to pay homage to the climate change lobby.
5. Anti-socialism.
6. Strong military.
7. Minimal allegiance to the dictates of unelected supernational bodies such as the EU and the U.N.

So what, in your mind, makes Trump a lefty?

I am unsure why you believe Obama or any el Presidente' of the USA should be perfect. They aren't. Obama should be accorded a better deal than many on the right in US society allows but he was far from perfect. History will treat him much better than many Americans allow and it will I don't doubt, treat Trump much worse than many Americans believe.

Since I never claimed that any president should be perfect, I'll have to file that comment under "strawman."

Regardless, I tend to believe that history will show that Trump did a great deal more for the average American than Obama, who was more concerned with pleasing the chardonnay-sipping lefties in Europe than improving the lives of working citizens in his own country.

Plus, his entire foreign policy seemed based on the notion that America can't apologize enough for itself. What kind of president inks his name to the Paris climate accord, given the fact that America was on the hook to pay $3 billion to some U.N. slush fund ... and that China, the world's greatest spewer of CO2, got a free pass for 15 years?

There are problems, I am willing to admit with the way the UN is funded. There are also problems with China being identified as a "developing nation". However, Trump appears to be rather a "no-nothing" in his attitudes towards the world. America is no longer isolated from the effects of the world economy, 4E and I think it is time Americans in general acknowledged that rather than continually deny it.
[/quote]
Well, that's the point: America IS affected by the world economy, which is why Trump has declared that the U.S. will no longer meekly accept multi-billion-dollar trade imbalances at the hands of China, South Korea, Japan, etc.

He's also served notice to NATO nations that it's time for all of them to pay their agreed-upon "fair share."

That's why I find it refreshing to have a president who asserts America's interests instead of constantly bowing -- literally and figuratively -- to foreign leaders and international bodies that don't deserve $3 billion of the American taxpayers' money, given their track record for wasting it.

[The4thEstate]

Whoops, my previous post appears to have gotten garbled in the editing process. Let's try this again:

Nah, I wouldn't consider Murdoch a globalist sellout. He founded Fox News, which presents news and views that are the antithesis of the globalist perspective. Without Fox News cable news would be nothing but leftist propaganda.

You may not but you're only looking at his domestic US enterprise. Outside the US he has been quite willing to be a Globalist. Your views on what constitutes "leftist" is as we have seen all too often, far more biased than what reality indicates, 4E.

Actually, my views on what constitutes leftists are entirely consistent with the way they're defined in America.

Your mileage may vary.

Of course it will vary. Your milage is long overdue for a political realignment. Long over due.

I suspect you wouldn't recognise a real Leftist if they bit you on the bum, mate.

Hopefully you won't try to prove that, since I don't know where your teeth have been.

The US is not the world, 4E. I do wish you'd wake up to that.

Really? Silly me, I thought the U.S. was the only country on the entire globe!

I could well believe that, 4E.

Just as I'm not surprised that you'd drag out the shopworn "America is not the world" cliche.

Can't remember the first time I heard that one, but I do recall the same words appearing in a sappy Finnish song from about 30 years ago.

Well, I don't speak Finnish nor do I particularly follow popular music, so you're one up on me there, not that it's terribly important.

No, America isn't the world but Americans, like yourself, all too often act as if it was. America is special, America is exceptional. Yeah, sure, what ever floats your boat, 4E. Whatever fantasy you want to live in.

Sounds like an inferiority complex to me.

No reason to be defensive just because some of us Yanks happen to have a favorable opinion of our own country. It's not a zero-sum game. (Hey, we like Australia, too!)

As for my "left/right" references ... well, if you prefer I can refer to it as "liberal/conservative." But I was told that these terms, well understood in the U.S., don't mean the same thing elsewhere in the world. So take your pick; I'm easy.

The US is rather unique in how it applies such terms, 4E. They don't translate well outside of the US context as a consequence simply because the rest of the world is a great deal more flexible in how it views such things. What I have always found interesting is how many Americans view the Nazis as being "left-wing" whereas the rest of the world views them as having been "right-wing". Perhaps its 'cause they actually experienced them whereas the US never really did.

Well, naturally the international left isn't about to claim the Nazis, even though their name was short for "National Socialist Party."

Perhaps that strange beast, the "International Left" knows the difference between a Fascist Party and a real Socialist Party, 4E, unlike you, as a member of the American Right. Naziism was a Fascist Party.

Well, not everybody marches to your drummer. I find more wisdom in defining "left vs. right" as "statist vs. individual liberty," as described in this 2013 Forbes article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinsw ... a1a59c5f5c

"We need a rational way of setting up the political spectrum ... I have no objection to calling this spectrum 'Right vs. Left.' I have every possible objection to defining the extreme Right as fascism and the extreme Left as communism.

"Fascism and communism are two variants of statism. Both are forms of dictatorship. Neither one recognizes individual rights nor permits individual freedom. The differences are non-essential: fascism is racial statism and communism is statism of economic class."

Whether or not they were true socialists, their brutal, totalitarian government mimicked that of the most oppressive communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, and Cambodia under Pol Pot. And the commies were most definitely not right-wingers.

All depends on how you define the matter of "left-right". All three of those regimes were more interested in the Cult of the Personality than they were necessarily in the plight of the people. Stalin invented it, Mao refined it and Pol Pot took it to it's ultimate form. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the Kims of the DPRK. Or is that 'cause el Presidente' Trump has decreed that their excesses must now be ignored and you, being a good little Trumpite, have obeyed?

Umm ... no, I'd say Trump's try-something-new approach of the North Koreans translates to: "How well did it work for Obama and previous presidents when they tried to buy off the Kims with billions of dollars in aid?"

Go ahead, try pointing to the successes of the previous administration in its dealings with North Korea.

Anyway, it's not about any bias on my part. I already linked to the Harvard study showing how some of America's major media presented news that was 90 percent negative to Trump. Amazingly, Obama got considerably more favorable treatment from the same fawning reporters.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byro ... t-negative

As I keep pointing out, it is all a matter of perception, 4E. Harvard is in American society so it looks at politics through a lense shaped by American society. I'm not saying that they or you are wrong, rather that you and they are perhaps mistaken, as is US society in general. The US tends to magnify politics and social elements to the extreme and attempts to paint them as being generally characteristics of either side of politics.

That's all well and good, but on what basis are you asserting that Harvard and I are perhaps mistaken?

The Harvard study identified negative media stories about Trump. You can argue about what's left and what's right, but it's pretty hard to claim that a story that bashes Trump is, in fact, a report that cheerfully accents his positive traits.

You are mistaken 'cause you have identified negative stories about Trump as meaning those stories are actually "Left" in tone/sentiment. They aren't, they're just anti-Trump. Trump does not personify the ideals of the Right. Indeed, I am unsure what Trump believes as against what Trump actively does.

Yeah right, and I suppose you also believe that Bernie Sanders doesn't personify the ideals of the Left.

You can try to split hairs on whether anti-Trump stories signify lefty bias, but when the same media gives a liberal president like Obama positive treatment -- and when Democrat scandals are minimized, whitewashed and/or ignored by the same media -- then it's a matter of "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck" ... what is it?

Trump may not be a traditional conservative (right-winger), but a great many of his policies and stances fit neatly into that category. Here, I'll throw you a bone and list a few:

1. Strong national sovereignty as opposed to open borders and taking in hordes of Third World refugees and asylum seekers.
2. Supreme Court judges that are firm Constitutionalists.
3. "America first" decisions when it comes to treaties that don't benefit the nation and its citizens, such as the Paris climate agreement, the TPP and Obama's Iran treaty.
4. American energy independence instead of a policy banning energy exploration to pay homage to the climate change lobby.
5. Anti-socialism.
6. Strong military.
7. Minimal allegiance to the dictates of unelected supernational bodies such as the EU and the U.N.

So what, in your mind, could possibly make Trump a lefty?

I am unsure why you believe Obama or any el Presidente' of the USA should be perfect. They aren't. Obama should be accorded a better deal than many on the right in US society allows but he was far from perfect. History will treat him much better than many Americans allow and it will I don't doubt, treat Trump much worse than many Americans believe.

Since I never claimed that any president should be perfect, I'll have to file that comment under "strawman."

Regardless, I tend to believe that history will show that Trump did a great deal more for the average American than Obama, who was more concerned with pleasing the chardonnay-sipping lefties in Europe than improving the lives of working citizens in his own country.

Plus, his entire foreign policy seemed based on the notion that America can't apologize enough for itself. What kind of president inks his name to the Paris climate accord, given the fact that America was on the hook to pay $3 billion to some U.N. slush fund ... and that China, the world's greatest spewer of CO2, got a free pass for 15 years?

There are problems, I am willing to admit with the way the UN is funded. There are also problems with China being identified as a "developing nation". However, Trump appears to be rather a "no-nothing" in his attitudes towards the world. America is no longer isolated from the effects of the world economy, 4E and I think it is time Americans in general acknowledged that rather than continually deny it.

Well, that's the point: America IS affected by the world economy, which is why Trump has declared that the U.S. will no longer meekly accept multi-billion-dollar trade imbalances at the hands of China, South Korea, Japan, etc.

He's also served notice to NATO nations that it's time for all of them to pay their agreed-upon "fair share."

That's why I find it refreshing to have a president who asserts America's interests instead of constantly bowing -- literally and figuratively -- to foreign leaders and international bodies that don't deserve $3 billion of the American taxpayers' money, given their track record for wasting it.

[brian ross]

Whoops, my previous post appears to have gotten garbled in the editing process. Let's try this again:

Not to worry, we all make mistakes, 4E

Nah, I wouldn't consider Murdoch a globalist sellout. He founded Fox News, which presents news and views that are the antithesis of the globalist perspective. Without Fox News cable news would be nothing but leftist propaganda.

You may not but you're only looking at his domestic US enterprise. Outside the US he has been quite willing to be a Globalist. Your views on what constitutes "leftist" is as we have seen all too often, far more biased than what reality indicates, 4E.

Actually, my views on what constitutes leftists are entirely consistent with the way they're defined in America.

Your mileage may vary.

Problem is, you're not talking to an American, 4E...

Hopefully you won't try to prove that, since I don't know where your teeth have been.
[/quote]

Funny you should say that as I had just returned from the dentist that day, 4E. My teeth are clean indeed!

Sounds like an inferiority complex to me.

No reason to be defensive just because some of us Yanks happen to have a favorable opinion of our own country. It's not a zero-sum game. (Hey, we like Australia, too!)

You are welcome to believe what you like, 4E. Nothing inferior about me. I know that according to Freedom House I live in the freer of our two nations.

As for my "left/right"
Well, not everybody marches to your drummer. I find more wisdom in defining "left vs. right" as "statist vs. individual liberty," as described in this 2013 Forbes article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinsw ... a1a59c5f5c

"We need a rational way of setting up the political spectrum ... I have no objection to calling this spectrum 'Right vs. Left.' I have every possible objection to defining the extreme Right as fascism and the extreme Left as communism.

"Fascism and communism are two variants of statism. Both are forms of dictatorship. Neither one recognizes individual rights nor permits individual freedom. The differences are non-essential: fascism is racial statism and communism is statism of economic class."

The original "left" versus "right" was defined in the French Revolution. Since then it has been redefined as being based primarily on economic freedoms. The "Left" was defined as collectism versus the "Rights" belief in laissez faire economics. The was further redefined towards a mix of economics and freedom. I prefer that view. "Statism" is a very American view of the world IMHO.

Whether or not they
Umm ... no, I'd say Trump's try-something-new approach of the North Koreans translates to: "How well did it work for Obama and previous presidents when they tried to buy off the Kims with billions of dollars in aid?"

Go ahead, try pointing to the successes of the previous administration in its dealings with North Korea.

How about the previous regime to that one or the one before or the one before that or the one before that again ad infinitum? All were rather hampered by what Congress and the American people would allow. Trump has managed to make contact with Kim Jong Un but has he actually been all that successful? He's had two meetings with him, the first was semi-successful, the second? Not so successful. I wish him all the luck in the world in dealing with Kim Jong Un.

That's all well and good, but on what basis are you asserting that Harvard and I are perhaps mistaken?

The Harvard study identified negative media stories about Trump. You can argue about what's left and what's right, but it's pretty hard to claim that a story that bashes Trump is, in fact, a report that cheerfully accents his positive traits.

You are mistaken 'cause you have identified negative stories about Trump as meaning those stories are actually "Left" in tone/sentiment. They aren't, they're just anti-Trump. Trump does not personify the ideals of the Right. Indeed, I am unsure what Trump believes as against what Trump actively does.

Yeah right, and I suppose you also believe that Bernie Sanders doesn't personify the ideals of the Left.
[/quote]

Tell me, does he, in your view? I must admit I don't know enough about Bernie Sanders to have made my mind up. I don't believe Trump personifies anything other than his own views.

You can try to split hairs on whether anti-Trump stories signify lefty bias, but when the same media gives a liberal president like Obama positive treatment -- and when Democrat scandals are minimized, whitewashed and/or ignored by the same media -- then it's a matter of "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck" ... what is it?

Well, to be honest, I don't particularly care. You seem to think that being pro-Obama immediately makes a person a leftist. Me? I just think they are pro-Obama. I have no idea about what their personal beliefs are vis-a-vis economics and personal freedoms. If someone is anti-Trump they are being well, anti-Trump because Trump has in their view done something wrong (which to be honest isn't hard for Trump). I don't believe there was all that much that Obama did that was wrong from my perspective. He didn't end up being impeached, or rather being investigated for impeachment, now did he?

Trump may not be a traditional conservative (right-winger), but a great many of his policies and stances fit neatly into that category. Here, I'll throw you a bone and list a few:

1. Strong national sovereignty as opposed to open borders and taking in hordes of Third World refugees and asylum seekers.
2. Supreme Court judges that are firm Constitutionalists.
3. "America first" decisions when it comes to treaties that don't benefit the nation and its citizens, such as the Paris climate agreement, the TPP and Obama's Iran treaty.
4. American energy independence instead of a policy banning energy exploration to pay homage to the climate change lobby.
5. Anti-socialism.
6. Strong military.
7. Minimal allegiance to the dictates of unelected supernational bodies such as the EU and the U.N.

So what, in your mind, could possibly make Trump a lefty?

Haven't suggested he was a "Lefty", 4E. Please erect your strawman arguments somewhere else.

Well, that's the point: America IS affected by the world economy, which is why Trump has declared that the U.S. will no longer meekly accept multi-billion-dollar trade imbalances at the hands of China, South Korea, Japan, etc.

Well, actually, that does mean he believes the US isn't part of the world economy, 4E. He believes that the US cannot trade with the rest of the world because there will always been imbalances in trade. Until the last 30 or so years, it was all in favour of the US, not it's turned in part against the US because the US has decided to price itself out of the world economy.

He's also served notice to NATO nations that it's time for all of them to pay their agreed-upon "fair share."

Couldn't agree more. Tell me, when is the US going to pay the going rate for all it's bases in Europe that it presently gets for free? Seems the US gets a large quantity of real estate very cheaply out of it's membership of NATO.

That's why I find it refreshing to have a president who asserts America's interests instead of constantly bowing -- literally and figuratively -- to foreign leaders and international bodies that don't deserve $3 billion of the American taxpayers' money, given their track record for wasting it.

Tell it to the members. The UN is not, despite what many Americans appear to believe a separate body. It is composed of all it's member states - including the USA. Now, if the US was really interested in reforming the UN, it would have made a move within the UN, rather than always just railing at it from the outside.