It has become more difficult since Trump was elected. I would first look at assimilations of reports, like the DOD Early Bird. Depending on the topic, and how interested I was in it, I would read the linked article. If I judged it biased or incomplete, I'd look for the counter point. As long as you remembered it had a right-leaning bent, Drudge was actually pretty comprehensive as a starting point; although it's not anymore. Apple News was decent. You could select "politics", "Fox" and "CNN" for example, and get articles from each in order to compare viewpoints. I used to end up on everything from BBC to Al Jazeera to Hareetz, in addition to the "standards" like the WashPost, NYT, NY Post and Wall Street Journal.
Trump broke the media. Left-leaning outlets are virulent in their anti-Trump rhetoric, as are "old school" right-leaning outlets (think George Will, for example). Pro-Trump right-leaning outlets are broken too. Fox, Newsmax, etc... What's interesting to me is how many even farther right-leaning outlets are popping up - and it's also concerning.
So now I'm kind of left without a "one-stop shop" for a reasonable news source. I am trying a mail-service called "The Factual", that sends top headlines each morning and rates the sources (leans left, leans right, etc...). The problem remains that the outlets are now so biased that you can rarely get an objective story. Being retired, I now have more time and I have begun to listen to podcasts or YouTube videos of reasonable people discussing topics in the news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chuck Naill
I am speaking of performance, what he has done and said. Perhaps it is time to consider that the man failed to produce a health care bill, passed a tax bill that didn't make working people better off, and lied to the American public of the seriousness of COVID-19, and made wearing a mask political.
The problem with disruption is that the infrastructure needed during a time of a pandemic is ineffective or non existance. Disruption sounds good until it isn't. This administration has explained well why you need government to function. Just because you were a business success, does not mean you can lead. Business success can stem from inheritance, being at the right place at the right time, and just plain old dumb luck. It does not mean you can lead. This also has been on full display.
I agree that he didn't submit a health-care bill, but I was actually somewhat happy about that. Honestly though, that sort of thing never comes from the office of the President - and it shouldn't. That's why there is a legislative branch. I doubt anything would have made it out of committee to a vote, with each party desperately trying to hold on to power. Even if they did produce something, it would have been as bad as Obamacare - more focused on catering to special interests than anything.
I thought the tax bill did make working people better off, but that's mainly in dropping the corporate tax. Investment increased, which led to job growth and stock market gains. Trump's economic policy is hard to argue against. If you're a 40-something middle class American, you were relieved if not overjoyed at the status of your 401k. That whole topic is a complex issue, and a lot of it centers on "corporate America". Lobbyists buying politicians, globalists outsourcing labor (which cost American jobs and wage growth), etc...
The American economy was always Trump's issue. He has been commenting that he thought we were getting screwed for 30-40 years now. Sometimes I think he views himself as the CEO of America (and I think his narcissistic tendencies play in that). No doubt he sweet-talked, bullied, litigated and probably cheated his way to the financial success Trump Intl. has; and we see the same in his interactions with other countries. He wanted to make America, LLC "profitable". Time will tell if the renegotiated NAFTA is worthwhile. China is not only not our friend, it is a significant threat. Trump attacked that head on (and I think that's why Mattis was initially with him).
I can't imagine interacting with Trump on a daily basis, given his personality. I suspect he listens more than he's given credit for, and I think his naivety was in thinking the bureaucracy would be on board with his way-ahead. In corporate America, there's petty intrigue and back-stabbing to get a promotion; but none of that is at the expense of the corporation. In bureaucratic America, the bureaucracy (and one's position in it) has primacy. The various departments and agencies have no interest in anything but their own self-licking ice cream cones. But there's way too much to talk about there...
Trump had too many apple-carts he would have to upset in order to really get anything done. Each of those apple-carts fought change tooth and nail (sorry, the metaphors are getting out of hand...). Trump dominated in some cases, and was beaten back in others. He is horribly inarticulate, and the media leverages that to paint him in the worst light possible. He bungled the messaging on COVID, but he got a lot of the actions right. Shutting down travel early was a good move, and everyone mocked him for it. No one but the orange bully (I think) could have got a vaccine to market in the speed he did. He was lambasted for handing off the distribution to General Perna. As a 30-year Army logistician and someone very familiar with Gus and Army Material Command, Trump was actually right in that course of action.
This response is getting way too long, and the topics are too complex to treat comprehensively. If you would like to pick some specific ones, and perhaps dedicate each to its own thread; I'd be happy to go more in depth.
