Zitat von Roy

mhm, gute Frage, @Clive . Wo ist denn die "liberale Ecke"? In der progressiv Bubble gelten diese ja ebenso als Gegner, wie die rechts-konservativen. Wenn du zB Jacobin, Truth Dig, Intercept quer liest, wirst Du ziemlich viel Kritik an der "Liberalen Presse" finden. Ich glaube hier findest Du kaum jemanden, der die pauschal verteidigt.

Wie kommt man da raus? Vielleicht sie als das lesen, was sie sind.

Danke. Truthdig kenne ich gar nicht. Finde beim Aufrufen den Hinweis:
"Truthdig is on hiatus. Our archives of 15 years of award-winning independent journalism are available for free."

Intercept mochte ich früher sehr, mittlerweile nur noch ausgewählte Autoren. Da gab es auch einiges an internen Zwistigkeiten. Ein Block war voll auf dem Russiagate Zug aufgesprungen.

"Als das lesen was sie sind" - das finde ich nicht immer einfach. Wonach eichst Du Dich/die Inhalte, die du konsumierst?

Ein Weg für mich ist, möglichst genau die Quellen nachzulesen - so tief es eben möglich ist. Bei "anonymous intel community members told us" ist da direkt Sackgasse bzw. das Geschmäckle ist das, was bleibt.

Link einfügen

Zitat von Tilman

Was aber nunmal genau das ist, was die Umfragen zur "General Election" aussagen

Das stimmt weitestgehend. Gab natürlich genauere Analysen dazu:

An Evaluation of 2016 Election Polls in the U.S.

Punkt 2 schlägt in die Kerbe, die ich vorhin angesprochen habe.

Zitat von Tilman

Da wird man bei diesen Wahlen sicher vorsichtiger sein.

Da bin ich mir nicht so sicher.
Die Pollster selber machen ihren Job - es sind die Medien, die die Zahlen dann "aufarbeiten" und an den Leser regelmäßig mit einem Spin weitergeben (siehe Punkt 2).

[Hier noch eine Einschätzung von Nate Silver The Polls Are All Right]

Aber nur eine Partei hat Hitler 2.0

Zitat von AlienObserver

Die Republikaner sind eben nicht mehr einer der zwei Flügel einer Partei seit dem Trump offen Nazis anstachelt.

"They where very fine People" sagt Trump über KKK Chef David Duke und seine Nazischläger in Charlottesville.

Das waren Leute die absichtlich ein Auto in eine Menge friedlicher Demonstranten fahren. Ich meine was soll passieren damit @Clive Trump ernst nimmt.

Einmal versuche ich es noch mit dem Antifa Fanatiker.

War Trumps Aussage unbedacht? Wahrscheinlich. Ist Trump ein "fascist"? Möglich. Hat er mit seinr Aussage in charlottesville einzig das gesagt, was Du wiedergeben hast? Schauen wir doch mal in den Text:

Zitat

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."

Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."

Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.

Alles anzeigen

Politifact meint: "Full context is needed"

Darum macht ein Austausch mit Fanatikern keinen Sinn - es gibt dort nur schwarz und weiß.

Bevor Du mir noch mit dem "I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue"-Spruch kommst [Snopes]:

Zitat

It’s true that Trump made the “shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue” remark widely attributed to him across standard and social media sites. However, the (somewhat clumsy and crass) comment also generally appeared absent of its broader context, which pertained to the loyalty of his followers, and not an actual desire, intent, or interest in shooting any individuals for the sole reason that he believed it would have no effect on his popularity.

Kontext - deal with it.