The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Crunch on December 28, 2018, 11:16:12 AM

Title: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on December 28, 2018, 11:16:12 AM
Given the focus so many here have on exposing falsehoods, I’m sure this will be interesting (the coming logical fallacies in the replies will be fun to see).

2018’s worst examples of fake news. (https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/22/worst-fake-news-stories-cnn-nbc-2018/) There are 32 in their list, all great ones. The ones denying Obama doing the exact same things Trump did are particularly delicious but I’d have to say #7 was the most egregious dishonesty.

Quote
CNN accused Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz of being “scared” to come on their programs in the wake of the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Sen. Ted Cruz blasted CNN for the falsehood, explaining on Twitter that he had done a 15-minute interview on the network the day prior.

“CNN has aired NONE of it,” Cruz complained. “Why not air the (entire) interview?

It really demonstrates the rank dishonesty of CNN and exposes the network for the DNC propaganda machine it is.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on December 28, 2018, 11:22:11 AM
One of my favorites in the last week is not exactly fake news, but an example of the media reporting things in an absurd manner.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/entertainment/2018/12/21/ryan-reynolds-pranked-christmas-sweater-jackman-gyllenhaal-mxp-vpx.hln (https://www.cnn.com/videos/entertainment/2018/12/21/ryan-reynolds-pranked-christmas-sweater-jackman-gyllenhaal-mxp-vpx.hln)

Sorry for linking to a video, but in what way is telling someone a party is a sweater party, an Epic prank? 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Pete at Home on December 28, 2018, 11:24:40 AM
Cruz should sue them in the UK where libel laws have more teeeth.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: velcro on December 31, 2018, 09:26:02 AM
I agree, the accusation about Cruz is ridiculous.*

It also has no real effect on the country, compared to the accusation that Obama tapped Trump's phones, or that 3 million illegal votes were cast. And it lists 28 stories for the year spread over several news outlets that produce many thousands of stories in a year combined.  Some of these sources may be biased.  You can choose to stop reading them.

Compare to 7,644 false or misleading statements from one person, the person responsible for speaking truthfully to the country, over two years.  We can't choose to stop having him as our president.

But I don't deny the obvious truth that some media stories are false.  I just put it in context.

*Of course, the original quote referred to Gov. Rick Scott, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.  Only Cruz responded, so they were 2/3 right :)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on December 31, 2018, 10:14:23 AM
Do you think the listed stories are a full account of all the false stories over the year? Everything the media did in 2018 was true, honest reporting except for 28 stories. Really? That’s really what you’re gonna go with?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on December 31, 2018, 10:28:06 AM
I agree, the accusation about Cruz is ridiculous.*

It also has no real effect on the country, compared to the accusation that Obama tapped Trump's phones,

Thanks for reminding us about another place Trump's "lies" turned out to be true.  Or did you miss, among other things, that the FBI had transcripts of Flynn's conversations from inside the transition headquarters before they ever interviewed him?

It's funny non-sensical parsing to claim that's not the Obama administration wiretapping the Trump campaign.  They also have recordings of others, like Page, apparently from inside Trump tower.

So thanks for reminding us about the misdeeds of the Obama admin.  That certainly was a giant media lie and cover up.

Quote
...or that 3 million illegal votes were cast.

I've never seen any proof of his one, so glad to hear you verified all the voters in the country and eliminated the possibility - mind citing us to that proof again?

Quote
Compare to 7,644 false or misleading statements from one person, the person responsible for speaking truthfully to the country, over two years.

I agree, most of the 7,644 statements represent multiple lies by the media.  You are being super helpful today.  You know like repeatedly and falsely claiming that their political disagreements are "lies".

Quote
We can't choose to stop having him as our president.

Wow that's just false, we can elect someone else.

Quote
But I don't deny the obvious truth that some media stories are false.  I just put it in context.

Sort of.  You have only one context.  No matter what lie gets told about Trump it's still his fault, no matter what statement he makes it's a lie, no matter what decision he makes it's wrong.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: scifibum on December 31, 2018, 02:37:54 PM
Quote
I've never seen any proof of his one, so glad to hear you verified all the voters in the country and eliminated the possibility - mind citing us to that proof again?

Do you have a sincere belief that the burden of proof falls to disproving a wild, unsubstantiated (despite efforts by Kobach and others) claim like the one that Trump would have won the popular vote if not for millions of illegal votes?

If so, you are overdue for some reflection.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: velcro on December 31, 2018, 04:05:28 PM
Seriati,

You keep talking about Trump lies.  Could you tell me who calls them lies?  With very few exceptions, I call them false and misleading statements.  Your terminology is very sloppy.

Obama wiretapping Trump's phones:
I have gone through this. Anyone who cares can find out what the FBI said about this, and can look at fact checking from a variety of sources.  Obviously there are some people who don't believe the facts, or choose to spin this hard enough to make it look like it might be true.  (Wiretapping Russian agents and overhearing conversations withTrump campaign members is not wiretapping Trump's phone. Monitoring communications from Trump Tower to Russian banks is not wiretapping Trump's phone.)

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the 3 million illegal votes.  Trump claimed it. I can only say that if it were true, there would likely be evidence.  None has been forthcoming, and people have spent a lot of time looking.  Therefore I say it is false.

I could claim that Trump unquestionably shot someone on 5th Ave last week on live TV.  I produce no evidence, and a search of the internet provides none.  Would you say my claim is false? If not, then I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Quote
I agree, most of the 7,644 statements represent multiple lies by the media.
Sources?

Quote
Quote
We can't choose to stop having him as our president.

Wow that's just false, we can elect someone else.

I will assume you are serious, instead of trolling.  You can stop watching CNN today.  We can't stop having Trump as President today.  That means the country has to deal with his false and misleading statements for two years.

Quote
No matter what lie gets told about Trump it's still his fault, no matter what statement he makes it's a lie, no matter what decision he makes it's wrong.

I understand that your feeling is that is how some people treat Trump.  By all means continue to tell us your feelings.

In the meantime, I will go someplace else to talk about facts and reality.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on December 31, 2018, 04:30:17 PM
Quote
I've never seen any proof of his one, so glad to hear you verified all the voters in the country and eliminated the possibility - mind citing us to that proof again?

Do you have a sincere belief that the burden of proof falls to disproving a wild, unsubstantiated (despite efforts by Kobach and others) claim like the one that Trump would have won the popular vote if not for millions of illegal votes?

If so, you are overdue for some reflection.

Should I have sarcasmed off?  Let's be honest, it's systemically impossible to determine if illegal votes were cast in our system at scale (you can only catch them on the margins).  There's no way that you can vet - after the fact - whether a vote cast was cast by the person that was supposed to cast it, or that it correctly vetted the voters choice.  There's next to no way you can vet it - at the time - if you have a poll worker colluding with you.

We've deliberately set up our system so that it's virtually impossible to prove election tampering - even it were blatant.

I think we all know that Trump got his number by repeating something he heard from an activist, who in turn was doing some kind of ballparking where he assumed the worst case on every possible fact (no matter how realistic).  Like for example, assuming that every illegal with a state issued driver's license illegally voted, or assuming that some percentage of deliberate warm body fraud was occurring, maybe they even included estimates for fraudulent mail in votes.  But it's impossible to verify what actually happened because we deliberately made our system secret and impossible to validate.

Why do you find "estimates" in this field so troubling, when it doesn't seem to cause agita in other fields?  I grant you they are all politically motivate, but that's true whether you believe the lie that it never happens, as if you believe the lie that it always happens.  The only "fact" here is that we have no way to catch it as a routine matter and no way to create a credible estimate.  It would not shock me to find out there were 3 million plus fraudulent votes in the last election, it would shock to find out there were none.

Just yesterday someone repeated the old 1 in 5 women is assaulted meme (used to be 1 in 6), which itself involves a huge amount of guesswork and a ton of assumptions and definitional changes that may not be realistic assumptions.  Is that a lie?  What about the old 70 cents on a dollar, which has been debunked for decades (even though there's a plausible if narrow use case in which its almost true).  Or we  could run with the entire concept of systemic racism, which must be true even though no one can actually explain the racist vector that it entails (or even how to treat that vector).  Or how about the claim that there is no election fraud because it can't be proven (even though the systems are set to make it impossible to prove).

Or to put it another way, the only thing that I find less credible than a claim that we can prove 3 million people didn't vote illegally is a claim that they didn't do so, both claim's asserting certainty from ignorance, and really just relying on the listeners built in bias (you find it impossible that there could have been 3 million illegal votes). 

Do I think there were 3 million?  I really doubt it, but there's way to know.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on December 31, 2018, 05:18:43 PM
You keep talking about Trump lies.  Could you tell me who calls them lies?  With very few exceptions, I call them false and misleading statements.  Your terminology is very sloppy.

Well you took the statement from the WP site, which itself is designed, in my view, as propaganda.  "false" with intent equals lie, otherwise it's an error, at least in any "non-sloppy" formulation of the concept, and it seems repeatedly like you have asserted intent with respect to Trump's statements - which makes it fair to claim you are calling them lies.  "Misleading," is just a motte and bailey argument, when a claim is disproven as a lie, you can claim it's misleading as a fall back.

More to the point though, this thread was always kind of giant troll.  It's not about the materiality of the statements, or looking for impact of specific claims, or even about discussing the claims, it's just about building out a meme pack that "Trump lies."

Quote
Obama wiretapping Trump's phones:
I have gone through this. Anyone who cares can find out what the FBI said about this, and can look at fact checking from a variety of sources.

Check what?  You can 'splain it all you want, this is adequately debunked in any non-manipulated media environment.

While we don't know for sure, the most likely thing Gowdy showed Trump that led him to say he was wiretapped, was the actual transcripts from the phone calls of his staff.

We now know for a fact that those transcripts exist.

Ergo, Trump's statement is factual, correct and pretty much unassailable.

All you're doing at this point is quibbling.  There's no reasonable usage of the concept that you can listen in on, record and create transcripts from Trump's staff, including in Trump tower, and what he said not be true.

Quote
I'm not sure what you are talking about with the 3 million illegal votes.  Trump claimed it. I can only say that if it were true, there would likely be evidence.  None has been forthcoming, and people have spent a lot of time looking.  Therefore I say it is false.

Scifibum, this is why I phrased it that way.  He said it's false - that's a statement of fact.  If he's expressing his opinion, he's free to point out that it's "only his opinion" as he's repeatedly demanded from me, but the truth is, all the claim really is is "unproven and unlikely."  I don't have to think it's true, or even shown or likely to be true, to know that it hasn't been shown false.

Quote
I could claim that Trump unquestionably shot someone on 5th Ave last week on live TV.  I produce no evidence, and a search of the internet provides none.  Would you say my claim is false? If not, then I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Sort of, it's a better point than you think you are making.  I'm not in any position to know what Trump did or didn't do last week, certainly possible there could be an event that was covered up (even it it's unlikely).

However, also a terrible example, as much pretty all TV signals are recorded, and most of 5th avenue is recorded.  That example could be falsified quite easily (by someone with the time and resources).

Quote
Quote
I agree, most of the 7,644 statements represent multiple lies by the media.
Sources?

Lol.  Every time I've read the site, multiple on the front page have been political disagreements that the media is claiming are lies solely because they disagree with him.  I don't have a media organization at my command to dig through and create a site about it.  I get you don't recognize that your source is biased (because you agree with the bias) but it's still a credibility point for the claims it makes (specifically for the total numbers, but also for the places where the media bias is itself revealed). 

I mean you didn't even try to explain the most recent example I cited, but it won't stop you from using the total number in the future.

Pretty sure I've referenced at least 5-6 different examples (out of less than 20 reviewed items - where others were off kilter as well) - that's more than enough to establish the source has a serious bias and/or problem with the truth.

Better question, since you like the source, how many of them have you verified?

Quote
I will assume you are serious, instead of trolling.  You can stop watching CNN today.  We can't stop having Trump as President today.  That means the country has to deal with his false and misleading statements for two years.

Lol.  The country has been dealing with false and misleading statements for decades, and will be doing so long after Trump is gone.  So long as the media believes that it's okay to spin and mislead, we're going to be living under that threat.

I mean have you noticed the hundreds of media articles on the lies of the Demorats who oppose the wall (based on their prior support for the same or similar concepts)?  What gives, surely exposing liars is their duty - or at least so they imply with their fixation on Trump?  Yet on this one, not only do they fail to call out the left they actively support them in the deception?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 05, 2019, 03:53:31 PM
I think this one deserves a mention:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/01/03/nancy-pelosi-reagan-quote-dreamers-gop-vpx.cnn

Quote
Pelosi quotes Reagan, calls out GOP for not clapping
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) spoke about the DREAMers after being elected Speaker of the House and quoted former President Reagan. She then called out GOP lawmakers for not applauding the sentiment.

Where context matters. Pelosi was talking about "Dreamers" while Reagan was presumably talking about Legal Immigrants. But the soundbite media has lost all conception of the idea that context matters, unless it suits their interests of course.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on January 05, 2019, 05:07:34 PM
Are you suggesting that CNN did not accurately report Pelosi's actually statement?  Or are you taking exception with them for not fact checking her rhetoric?

If the latter, well, in Reagan's farewell address he said the following (my bold):
Quote
But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
Nothing there about having the proper paperwork and the pre-approval of the current administration.  Disagree with Reagan's sentiment or not, but it is unlikely that, in that address, he was talking exclusively about legal immigrants.

I suppose you can disagree with what Reagan's words actually meant, or what he was possibly leaving unstated, but to take this as an unequivocal example of a misleading claim by CNN?  Not really.  At best you can say there is ambiguity, but a straight reading of what CNN reported shows them to have been pretty spot-on, here.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 06, 2019, 04:55:05 AM
Are you suggesting that CNN did not accurately report Pelosi's actually statement?  Or are you taking exception with them for not fact checking her rhetoric?

If the latter, well, in Reagan's farewell address he said the following (my bold):
Quote
But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
Nothing there about having the proper paperwork and the pre-approval of the current administration.  Disagree with Reagan's sentiment or not, but it is unlikely that, in that address, he was talking exclusively about legal immigrants.

I suppose you can disagree with what Reagan's words actually meant, or what he was possibly leaving unstated, but to take this as an unequivocal example of a misleading claim by CNN?  Not really.  At best you can say there is ambiguity, but a straight reading of what CNN reported shows them to have been pretty spot-on, here.

There is the ideal, and then there is the reality. He was speaking of the ideal, not the reality, he knew that even then, or maybe he didn't, as he allegedly was in early stages of Alzheimer's by then.

There is the whole matter of America being a nation of laws, and holding to the rule of law. Which means you follow the legal process for getting in.

There also is the whole thing about swamping the lifeboat. Or the concept of that shining city getting swarmed by the masses at a rate even it is unable to handle and the city quickly loses its shine and descends quickly into squalor and filth instead.

Again, we're talking about the ideal, as opposed to the reality. Reality sucks, but its what we have to deal with. Since the 1990's one of our largest exports has been jobs and Automation has been further shrinking the number of jobs available. Meaning there aren't many jobs which those incoming masses could fill, not anymore at least.

1988 was a VERY different point in time in a LOT of ways, many of which we're even now having a hard time wrapping our heads around. So even if his desire was to be more literal in realization of that ideal. Reality has thrown a spanner wrench into that process. We have problems taking care of our own at this time, and the long-term prospects aren't pleasant to contemplate where further automation is concerned.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on January 06, 2019, 07:51:35 AM
No, what we are talking about is your claim of misleading or false reporting by CNN - and clearly, Pelosi paraphrased Reagan pretty accurately, and CNN accurately reported on her speech. 

Sure, you can suggest that, in a straight-up reporting piece, CNN should have given a history lesson on the 1980s and the 2010s, on Reagan's deteriorating health, on the possibility that the address was written by Reagan's team and probably not by the man himself, or that Reagan should no longer be revered as he has been by conservatives for the past 40 years, but now you are getting out of the realm of reporting and into the realm of analysis and even punditry.

CNN has a slew of opinion and editorial writers whose responsibility is to deconstruct such speeches, and yes, on CNN they skew anti-Trump, but those are clearly labelled as opinion pieces.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on January 07, 2019, 08:25:48 AM
Let’s talk about false claims. Here’s Ocasio-Cortez:

Quote
There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

So you see, stop focusing on facts. Factual correctness is not important. Everyone needs to get on the AOC  socialism train where facts don’t matter. It’s all about what’s morally right.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 07, 2019, 10:45:27 AM
I thought we already agreed that for today's leadership Facts don't matter.  - The ends justify the means.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on January 07, 2019, 10:59:10 AM
Crunch believes Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the media, it would seem...
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 07, 2019, 11:11:41 AM
Quote
The first problem here is that Ocasio-Cortez is really minimizing her falsehoods. Four Pinocchios is not a claim that Glenn Kessler and The Post’s Fact Checker team give out for bungling the “semantics” of something. It’s when something is a blatant falsehood. It’s the worst rating you can get for a singular claim.

In the case of the $21 trillion, Ocasio-Cortez was suggesting that this was all Pentagon waste and that cleaning it up could pay for two-thirds of the estimated $32 trillion price tag for single-payer health care, which she and others are referring to as Medicare-for-all.

In this case the supposed "liberal media" in the form of the Washington Post had slammed her hard for being ridiculous, not to mention comparing a number based on 17 years to a number based on 10 years. It wasn't the first time. She plays as fast and loose with facts as Trump, and could have her own thread detailing her false and misleading statements.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: yossarian22c on January 07, 2019, 11:33:35 AM
In this case the supposed "liberal media" in the form of the Washington Post had slammed her hard for being ridiculous, not to mention comparing a number based on 17 years to a number based on 10 years. It wasn't the first time. She plays as fast and loose with facts as Trump, and could have her own thread detailing her false and misleading statements.

I looked up this quote hoping it was taken out of context but it wasn't. I really hope this isn't the future of the democratic party.  :'(
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 07, 2019, 11:52:56 AM
Quote
I really hope this isn't the future of the democratic party.

My feeling that the GOP will keep focus on her with the intention that people do view her as the scary face of the democratic party.  Good strategic move as she is very Idealistic and that is scary.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: yossarian22c on January 07, 2019, 12:01:55 PM
My feeling that the GOP will keep focus on her with the intention that people do view her as the scary face of the democratic party.  Good strategic move as she is very Idealistic and that is scary.

She should use the Al Franken strategy of keeping a very low media profile while doing her job as a legislature, at least until she manages to learn how to speak factually and convincingly to a broader audience.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 07, 2019, 12:04:10 PM
Here's a darn good example of media misrepresentation.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims)

The media creates a controversy by attributing a negative to "conservatives" that they can then rail against as the news item - without any actual conservatives apparently involved.  Total smear job and full on propaganda.

President Obama was the master of this tactic, broadcasting a national "response" to a controversy that no one ever heard of until he gave it the soap box treatment.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 07, 2019, 12:27:00 PM
This is the Washington Post:

Quote
“Here is America’s favorite commie know-it-all acting like the clueless nitwit she is,” tweeted AnonymousQ1776. (The Twitter account apparently has been deleted.)

To which the rest of the sentient world responded: Wow, she did a thing.

Hardly seems like they were trying to claim conservatives were outraged.

The one fox calls out as the "most overblown example" merely talks about that particular twitter user only, which clearly did think that it would show her in a negative light. I don't see anything in the actual article (https://www.newsweek.com/alexndria-ocasio-cortez-conservatives-dancing-video-1278950?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=NewsweekTwitter) that suggests there was a major reaction by conservatives to the existence of the video, only that "several conservative twitter feeds" shared it.

The headline is indeed misleading and inflammatory, "CONSERVATIVES MOCK ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ FOR COLLEGE DANCING VIDEO, EVERYONE ELSE THINKS IT’S ADORABLE". Unfortunately that's what's happened to headlines across the board. I won't defend that practice.

Maybe this is just a sign that people never delve behind the headline or the soundbite teaser or the news scroll at the bottom of the TV broadcast.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 07, 2019, 12:41:50 PM
I though we had already established most people only pay attention to the headline and maybe the byline. They don't have the attention span for much else.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 07, 2019, 01:20:27 PM
Quote
President Obama was the master of this tactic, broadcasting a national "response" to a controversy that no one ever heard of until he gave it the soap box treatment.

I was not aware of this trait. Do you have examples?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 07, 2019, 02:06:28 PM
Well, there was this one YouTube video that had about 50,000 views shortly after his admin claimed it caused a major incident....
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: yossarian22c on January 07, 2019, 02:13:37 PM
Well, there was this one YouTube video that had about 50,000 views shortly after his admin claimed it caused a major incident....

It did cause the protests that shut down the embassy in Egypt, just not the attack on the consulate that killed an Ambassador in Libya. So it caused one incident but not the major one and as I remember that claim was corrected within about 10 days of being made.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 07, 2019, 03:00:07 PM
I remember the claim being corrected in a few days as well.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 07, 2019, 03:40:39 PM
In this case the supposed "liberal media" in the form of the Washington Post had slammed her hard for being ridiculous, not to mention comparing a number based on 17 years to a number based on 10 years. It wasn't the first time. She plays as fast and loose with facts as Trump, and could have her own thread detailing her false and misleading statements.

I looked up this quote hoping it was taken out of context but it wasn't. I really hope this isn't the future of the democratic party.  :'(

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding the course of the thread, do you mean you hope the future of the Democratic party isn't to make statements like that moral rightness is more important that factual, detail-oriented rightness?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 07, 2019, 04:01:38 PM
Quote
President Obama was the master of this tactic, broadcasting a national "response" to a controversy that no one ever heard of until he gave it the soap box treatment.

I was not aware of this trait. Do you have examples?

As far as it being a regular trick, here's an article from early in his Presidency about him tending to respond to strawmen.  https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/us/politics/24straw.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/us/politics/24straw.html). 

I also seem to remember making the argument a couple times (real time on the old board).  Here's a link to the thread about Ahmed Mohammed (clock boy).  I didn't get involved until page 5, where I do make the accusation (and then walk back that it's the only reason the story went national).  http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16833.html (http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16833.html)  I can't remember the other times I put that out there, where it more directly applied that the national story broke with Obama refuting an otherwise local story.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 07, 2019, 04:45:19 PM
Quote
"Here’s the trick: Take your opponent’s argument to a ridiculous extreme, and then attack the extremists,”

That does seem to be the go to for most politicians. I will have to pay closer attention.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 07, 2019, 04:45:24 PM
Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding the course of the thread, do you mean you hope the future of the Democratic party isn't to make statements like that moral rightness is more important that factual, detail-oriented rightness?

Claiming the moral high ground when the facts actually say anything but that tends to be a problem.

You want to make sure the facts are there before you do that. Otherwise you'll come off as a hypocrite, a fool, or an *censored*. If not all three.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on January 07, 2019, 07:02:29 PM
Seriati,

Quote
As far as it being a regular trick, here's an article from early in his Presidency about him tending to respond to strawmen.  https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/us/politics/24straw.html. 

It is bizarre that the article suggests a straw man, he clarified exact topics which the article quoted.

Obama stated his opponents think we shouldn't deal with climate change or health care.

Quote
I’d prefer not having to deal with climate change right now. And if you could just hold on, even though you don’t have health care, just please wait, because I’ve got other things to do.”

It is a wide spread Republican belief that climate change isn't happening, and even if it is happening we didn't cause it, but even if we did cause it, it won't be that bad, and besides it would be too costly to address.  Similarly Republicans argue that the government shouldn't be involved in trying to reduce health care costs.  So the claimed strawman, wasn't a strawman at all.  Anyone with even a slight knowledge about US politics knows who suggests we should ignore those specific challenges.

Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 07, 2019, 07:36:22 PM
I think it is probably a bit much for him to characterize Republicans as shying away from solving healthcare because it is "too hard". Republicans have made it clear that they don't really think that everyone should have access to healthcare, and that insurance companies should be free to manage their plans to accomplish that goal. Republican states don't avoid medicaid expansions because it is difficult, they avoid it because they don't give a hoot if poor people have to choose between medication and basic needs like food and shelter.

After all, if you can't find a good full time job, you deserve hepatitis.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on January 07, 2019, 08:11:47 PM
Crunch believes Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the media, it would seem...

Hahahaha, yeah. You got me, genius.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on January 07, 2019, 08:20:03 PM
In this case the supposed "liberal media" in the form of the Washington Post had slammed her hard for being ridiculous, not to mention comparing a number based on 17 years to a number based on 10 years. It wasn't the first time. She plays as fast and loose with facts as Trump, and could have her own thread detailing her false and misleading statements.

I looked up this quote hoping it was taken out of context but it wasn't. I really hope this isn't the future of the democratic party.  :'(

I hope so too, socialism is  horror show. But, sadly, I think she is. There are even articles  in some media that propose repealing the age limit for president so she can be appointed in 2020. The media, and thus the democrat party, love her. You’ve seen people here in this forum champion her and want to defend her:

AOC is energetic, smart, and already pointing out aspects of the the "swamp" that need to be corrected, like a supposed orientation for members of Congress that was heavily attended by lobbyists and CEOs. She scares conservatives, which is why they are so desperate to come up with a narrative that she's dumb or wears fancy clothes or something.

I think she can keep dominating the Democrats and the national conversation. The media is really delivering here ... for Trump.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 08, 2019, 10:32:09 AM
Saw the interview with Ocasio-Cortez. I think the quote Crunch posted was concerned about was taken out of context. 

Quote
Anderson Cooper: One of the criticisms of you is that— that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios—

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Oh my goodness—

Anderson Cooper: —for misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

Anderson Cooper: But being factually correct is important—

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: It's absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "Okay, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's— it's not the same thing as— as the president lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.

I thought we agreed that Trump might exaggerate but does not lie as there is usually a sliver of truth in his “facts” that support the point he is trying to make. Focus on the point snot the facts is the argument. It doesn’t matter if what Trump says about the immigrants is true or not what matters is that he promised a wall and we want to feel secure even if it’s an illusion.

Now I find this type of logic troubling however I see the point that nit picking everything a politician says might prevent someone from seeing the forest for the trees.  (Though for politicians like Trump it works in there favor.) Would this be what we call a Slippery slope? 

IMO saying yes to Trumps communication and leadership style pretty much means that those that said yes to him have no right to be concerned when other mess up on the facts.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 08, 2019, 10:40:41 AM
Her point was clearly that someone attempting to be honest and making some kind of numerical errors is not the same thing as using fake figures to deceive and spin your agenda. The idea of nitpicking every soundbite to look for weakness is indeed a problem, but then the game devolves into who can create the best propaganda using snippets out of context, rather than who has the better vision for the country. How can this not be clear?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: yossarian22c on January 08, 2019, 10:47:12 AM
IMO saying yes to Trumps communication and leadership style pretty much means that those that said yes to him have no right to be concerned when other mess up on the facts.

I didn't say yes to him and I refuse to hold people in esteem who either speak to me like I'm an idiot or as if they are an idiot. She didn't just mistake the numbers by a little, she was off by close to an order of magnitude.

I can agree with many of her policy goals but if you want to govern you have to get the facts right. You shouldn't be off by an order of magnitude for costs (or in this case potential savings). You don't need to get every number exactly right every time you speak but making claims that are off by orders of magnitude is not acceptable.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 08, 2019, 11:19:36 AM
LR,

First that was just one place, from early on that listed some of his straw man arguments out.  There are many others that picked up on the trick over the years.  Politicians have always used the strawman trick, but what struck me in the Obama era with his large number of media water carriers was how often you never actually heard about the original facts until Obama weighed in with his response. 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/barack-obama-and-the-hall-of-fame-of-straw-men.php (https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/barack-obama-and-the-hall-of-fame-of-straw-men.php)
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/01/21/can-you-guess-how-many-straw-man-arguments-were-in-obamas-speech (https://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/01/21/can-you-guess-how-many-straw-man-arguments-were-in-obamas-speech)
https://freebeacon.com/politics/triple-whammy-obama-makes-straw-man-argument-rips-fox-news-and-jokes-about-his-coolness-in-one-breath/ (https://freebeacon.com/politics/triple-whammy-obama-makes-straw-man-argument-rips-fox-news-and-jokes-about-his-coolness-in-one-breath/)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-obamas-global-war-on-straw-men/2014/06/02/534c58ce-ea78-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c36374c5fc78 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-obamas-global-war-on-straw-men/2014/06/02/534c58ce-ea78-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c36374c5fc78)

Interestingly, one of the sources also led to this, which if you think the Trump admin reaching out to non-US parties prior to his swearing in (as some here have asserted) was illegal, ought to have you saying a few mea culpas.  It's also very interesting in the context that what we got was a terrible Iran deal.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/how-barack-obama-undercut-bush-administrations-nuclear-negotiations-with-iran.php (https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/how-barack-obama-undercut-bush-administrations-nuclear-negotiations-with-iran.php)


Obama stated his opponents think we shouldn't deal with climate change or health care.

That in itself is a complete strawman, not sure what you are objecting to.

Quote
It is a wide spread Republican belief that climate change isn't happening, and even if it is happening we didn't cause it, but even if we did cause it, it won't be that bad, and besides it would be too costly to address.

Is there?  https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/republicans-and-democrats-generally-agree-on-climate-change-but-not-with-each-other.html (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/republicans-and-democrats-generally-agree-on-climate-change-but-not-with-each-other.html)  https://www.futurity.org/politics-climate-change-opinions-beliefs/ (https://www.futurity.org/politics-climate-change-opinions-beliefs/)

Or are you just repeating a talking point?   The primary disagreements are over what should be done, and how important it is relevant to other issues not on the science itself.

Quote
Similarly Republicans argue that the government shouldn't be involved in trying to reduce health care costs.

So to defend against Obama's strawman you make your own?  There's no part of the Republican platform, that makes that claim.  There's ample evidence that Republicans are just as concerned about abusive medical costs and go after them just as much, and a clear history of Republicans establishing and supporting health care programs to reduce costs and protect the poor.  Claiming otherwise is a lie about history itself.

What there's a difference about is how to best accomplish those results.  The Republicans strongly favor the private market with its proven history of efficiency and innovation and the fact that it's caused medical technology that once only the rich could have afforded to become common place. 

And you know what?  The Democrats expressly refuse to support real efforts to curtail litigation abuse which has systematically forced the entire wasteful practice of defense medicine, excessive insurance and single handedly ensured that good doctors face life altering consequences not just for mistakes but also for outcomes that someone doesn't like.   And they have stood directly in the way of reforms to that system that would trim a huge number off of the costs of healthcare, primarily for political gain.

Quote
So the claimed strawman, wasn't a strawman at all.  Anyone with even a slight knowledge about US politics knows who suggests we should ignore those specific challenges.

The claimed strawman was in fact a strawman, you just doubled down on asserting untrue statements that no one is making (ie, straw man arguments).
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 08, 2019, 11:25:46 AM
Quote
Her point was clearly that someone attempting to be honest and making some kind of numerical errors is not the same thing as using fake figures to deceive and spin your agenda.

So you think she was making an honest mistake when making her claim that you could pay for medicare for all with pentagon waste?  ::)

This is one of a few signature issues for her. You really think she hasn't seen calculations on this? You really think she didn't know that discrepancies in accounting are not the same thing as wasteful spending that translates into available money?

"How are you going to pay for it?" is a legitimate question for any major policy. An advocate should have an answer that is not false or grossly misleading.

If you can't remember the numbers, have your office publish them for you and refer people to them. I suffer from this myself - I can hardly ever remember a raw number. In engineering you don't throw out a guess when asked in a meeting. You bring it with you, or you promise to get back to someone with the right number. I think we should demand the same from our politicians when it comes to spending our money.

This isn't just a quantitative error on her part, it is qualitative. There is no way that this source of funding is even significant in terms of paying for her program.

Her quote is revealing though. I think she honestly doesn't care how much the program costs, because to her it is a moral issue that we'll just have to find the money somewhere because this is a fundamental thing that we HAVE to do.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 08, 2019, 11:33:08 AM
Quote
Her point was clearly that someone attempting to be honest and making some kind of numerical errors is not the same thing as using fake figures to deceive and spin your agenda.

So you think she was making an honest mistake when making her claim that you could pay for medicare for all with pentagon waste?  ::)

I'm not saying anything about whether she did, in fact, make up facts or made a stupid mistake. But it's her quote above I was referring to, which people are interpreting as meaning "facts don't matter! only morals!" which is not what she meant. I attempted just above to explain what I believe she meant. Now, it's fair to argue that while her point is valid it's also irrelevant to a situation where she didn't just make an innocent error. So the argument would then have to be that her rebuttal is a smokescreen; but to argue that she's implying that facts and details don't matter (i.e. that she's espoused Trump's 'beliefs') doesn't seem supported by what she said.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 08, 2019, 11:33:36 AM
<sidebar> The Iran-Obama thing is a conspiracy theory manufactured out of whole cloth by Michael Ledeen, published by the usual conservative conspiracy outlets. </sidebar>
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on January 08, 2019, 11:37:08 AM
To be fair, conservatives are quite fond of declaring that cutting government waste will pay for all sorts of things. The biggest difference that I can see is that Ocasio-Cortez actually quoted numbers which could be refuted.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 08, 2019, 11:38:05 AM
TheDrake what's interesting about her quote is the implication that any thing false she says in morally correct, and anything false the "other side" says is pure evil lying done with intent.  Fen, I don't think you can have it both ways, I put her Pentagon quote in about the same category as Trump's 3 million illegal votes quote, or his quote on seeing American Muslims celebrating after 9/11. 

They all represent a politician "remembering" facts in a way that's convenient to their argument and not caring at all about whether they are precisely correct or even mostly correct because they are each convinced that the intent behind them is correct (i.e., that we can pay for universal healthcare, that illegal voting is a deliberate goal of and supporting results of one party, or that Muslims everywhere were secretly celebrating the attack). 

It's true believer thinking.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 08, 2019, 11:39:02 AM
<sidebar> The Iran-Obama thing is a conspiracy theory manufactured out of whole cloth by Michael Ledeen, published by the usual conservative conspiracy outlets. </sidebar>

Lol, it quite may be, however, I'm also of the opinion that the Trump conspiracy theory is pretty much a manufactured conspiracy as well, so that doesn't take them out of the same boat in my eyes.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 08, 2019, 12:08:26 PM
It's true believer thinking.

She may (or may not) be guilty of true believer thinking. But the contention above is that she's vocally advocating true believer thinking, which I believe was not her intent. She was trying to say that people will pick at things to strawman an issue. This may have been a deceptive thing to say after having been grossly in error about something, but as an isolated comment I don't see it as valid to imply she was actually claiming that facts don't matter. She might secretly believe it, but she was not claiming that.

And it is surely non-controversial to suggest that the main use of political media these days is to strawman issues and people. If indeed she did something wrong (like deliberately misleading with data) then the issue is hypocrisy; saying a true thing about strawmanning while doing something contrary to it by strawmanning for her own gain. But what she said in the quote above is not in itself objectionable as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 08, 2019, 12:37:33 PM
She may (or may not) be guilty of true believer thinking. But the contention above is that she's vocally advocating true believer thinking, which I believe was not her intent.

Fen, her intent could not be plainer.  She is saying she is good people so it should be let slide when she's grossly wrong because her larger point is correct.  She is saying the "other side" is bad people and that's where this kind of fact checking should be focused.

There's no basis to hold that inconsistent position other than a faulty position that defines the other side as evil.  I'm still not impressed with her, at all, though she's definitely charasmatic.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 08, 2019, 12:56:20 PM
The other thing is that her "nitpicking" doesn't seem to apply to Bernie Sanders who supports a lot of the same policies. I don't remember anybody ripping him a new one on his numbers.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: yossarian22c on January 08, 2019, 01:04:32 PM
The other thing is that her "nitpicking" doesn't seem to apply to Bernie Sanders who supports a lot of the same policies. I don't remember anybody ripping him a new one on his numbers.

Did he ever provide estimates that were off by an order of magnitude? I think being the more experienced politician that he is that he stayed away from actual numbers and it was one of the things Clinton criticized him for.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 08, 2019, 01:24:05 PM
Quote
Fen, her intent could not be plainer.

Anyone having political bias will come to the conclusion that the intent of someone in opposition could not be plainer.
This is a error I see a lot of us, including myself making and we need to be more careful.

Listening and watching the interview the intent behind her quote on facts and morals does not, to me anyway, point to a intent that people should let facts slide.
"It's (facts) absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "Okay, this was clumsy."

I haven't been paying much attention to her so don't know if she has a habit of playing fast and lose with facts. What I saw was a excited idealist who very much believes in what she stand for.
I found her authentic if naive and expect the system will devour her.

I find the furious and concern over her understanding and use of facts interesting. For me their is a 'clear intent' to ignore the understanding and use of facts from the commander and chief. A clear intent of his supporters to look the other way (or a unconscious shadow projection) but that would be mind reading :)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 08, 2019, 01:30:25 PM
Quote
"Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family."

That's Trumpian hyperbole, and it got her a pants on fire from politifact.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 08, 2019, 01:41:45 PM
RL, you quoted her actual statements:

Quote
If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

"She is saying she is good people so it should be let slide when she's grossly wrong because her larger point is correct. "

Quote
It's absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "Okay, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's— it's not the same thing as— as the president lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.

" She is saying the "other side" is bad people and that's where this kind of fact checking should be focused."

I don't get why anyone's trying to explain this away.  Again, she could not be plainer with her statements about what it means to be "morally right." 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 08, 2019, 02:07:51 PM
Quote
I don't get why anyone's trying to explain this away.

 ;D I don't get why anyone tries to explain away Trumps use of facts.  To me Trumps intention could not be plainer however I cannot state as fact that the intention I suspect he has is his intention. Only Trump could know that... and I suspected even he is not sure. 

Quote
Again, she could not be plainer with her statements about what it means to be "morally right."
What I got from her interview was that she believe her goals are the ones we should be morally aiming at and that she isn't overly concerned with how we pay for them. That does not mean she intended to promote morality trumps facts.

By all means jump on her about her view of reality and idealistic goals. This focus on her failure to get the facts right is just hypocrisy or worse unconscious shadow projection. At least she indicated that she intends to do better when she is clumsy with the facts.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 08, 2019, 02:32:26 PM
What I find confusing is explaining away her position on her misuse of facts not mattering because she's morally right.  That has nothing to do with the errors itself, which are not as big a deal to me.

I really only jump in on the Trump "errors" or "lies" where I think the interpretation of them is at least as misleading as the claim in the first place.  I don't see that with Ocasio-Cortez's statements, everyone knows she was wrong and no one seems to be attributing to any secret dark motives.  There's really nothing to "defend" on them, but the idea that her errors don't matter because her cause in just is truly offensive.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 08, 2019, 03:01:34 PM
Quote
What I find confusing is explaining away her position on her misuse of facts not mattering because she's morally right

That is where we disagree. I don't think that is what she "said" or intended to say.
You are assuming you her intent is clear because that is how you see it. Fair enough, That does not however mean your speculation is a fact or that everyone will see it as you do. 

If Trump had said what she said I suspect you would defending it.  I have heard the argument from many of his supporters that what matters isn't the facts but what he's doing. How is that different from your confusion of why people are explaining away her position.

Welcome to the confusion
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 14, 2019, 03:47:36 PM
Wasn't sure what thread to post this in, but I figured the one about false or misleading media reports was as good as any:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politics/white-house-iran-airstrikes-national-security-council/index.html

Quote
The White House's National Security Council asked the Pentagon last year for plans for launching a military attack against Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported early Sunday, citing current and former US officials.

The request from the council, which is led by national security adviser John Bolton, came after an attack in September on the US Embassy in Baghdad by a militant group aligned with Iran, according to the Journal.

[...]

The request was met with concern by both the Pentagon and the State Department, according to the Journal, with one former administration official telling the paper that people were "shocked" by the request.

[...]

Although the Pentagon obeyed the request by the council, the Journal reported, it is unknown whether or not the plans for striking Iran were ever fully developed or even provided to the White House. The Journal also said that it is unknown whether President Donald Trump had knowledge of the request.

Can anyone tell me how it's legal for any of the following to occur:

1) For people at the Pentagon to leak to the media the nature of stategic planning being made between them and the White House?
2) For this to be released through all media channels publicly, despite the fact that it's highly threatening and inflammatory towards Iran in particular?
3) And for a media circus to be made about a plan that was never actually carried out but appears to have just been a theoretical option?

As I understand it the military spends a considerable amount of time working out theoretical military plans based around just about every conceivable contingency. At any given time there are probably hundreds of established plans of attack sitting around focused around any possible foe they could imagine, obviously including Iran. So I'd like to know how it's anything other than fake news to suggest that being asked to create an attack plan against Iran is (a) irregular, and (b) something to blast out in public, and (c) even questionable. How can it be questionable to create lines of attack to be used if needed?

So you tell me: is this pure fake news, in that this is being paraded around as if it's something fantastically marvelous?

And I'm even more concerned about the idea that Pentagon officials will just tell media organizations about covert strategic requests from the White House. Isn't that treason?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on January 14, 2019, 04:02:20 PM
There's a difference between having plans on hand so a surprise conflict isn't starting from scratch and being told to draw up plans in response to an "act of war." Though I don't think article properly supports its conclusion that the request was "shocking" or particularly noteworthy.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 14, 2019, 04:14:31 PM
There's a difference between having plans on hand so a surprise conflict isn't starting from scratch and being told to draw up plans in response to an "act of war." Though I don't think article properly supports its conclusion that the request was "shocking" or particularly noteworthy.

The usual procedure as I understand is to have ready battle plans for many contingencies, and that this isn't just to avoid surprise but to judge how effectively various problems could theoretically be dealt with. I'm sure that the mere existence of some of these actually helps with policy because knowing how difficult or perhaps easy some of them would be to execute might inform the White House about whether that entire scenario should be avoided or courted. In this case if a plan was drafted in response to an act of war, how is that different than any of the other other battle plans, other than the fact that it was a particular scenario they didn't already have a plan lying around for?

It sounds to me not just that it's not news, but that it's deliberately being manufactured into being inflammatory for some reason.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on January 14, 2019, 04:22:57 PM
Because the "act of war" bit implies that it's intended to be used rather than just be used to inform policy. Though all we seem to have is that someone said people were shocked. This article is certainly playing up the significance of whatever happened but it could just be click bait rather than to inflame anything.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 14, 2019, 04:29:58 PM
Because the "act of war" bit implies that it's intended to be used rather than just be used to inform policy.

Afaik all of these theoretical plans are intended to be used, in the event that the contingency arises.

Quote
Though all we seem to have is that someone said people were shocked. This article is certainly playing up the significance of whatever happened but it could just be click bait rather than to inflame anything.

Yeah. I'm almost less concerned with the clickbait aspect to it as compared with the fact that this would get told to the media in the first place.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on January 14, 2019, 04:45:32 PM
Or...  This leak was intentional to ratchet up the threat to Iran to negotiate from a position of weakness.  Or so a hawk would see it. 

A controlled and well timed leak (no clue if this qualifies) can be every bit as potent a tool as actual diplomatic outreach or overt threat. 

Sets you up for good cop bad cop, military overreach, anti-whistleblower measures and countless other things. 

OR... it's just more incompetence and backstabbing from a government in turmoil. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 14, 2019, 05:47:26 PM
Quote
For people at the Pentagon to leak to the media the nature of strategic planning being made between them and the White House

If the plan was classified I would think it was illegal to leak it. That said leaking it could be a strategic move to let Iran know the US is "thinking about them"

I'm not paying attention to the story however anyone is attempting to spin the idea that asking for such a plan was improper won't come off as credible.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 14, 2019, 05:54:00 PM
It's certainly plausible that things can be released to have a deliberate effect. But I don't recollect ever hearing (since I've been paying attention) of reports before of Pentagon military planning being leaked to have an effect on a foreign power. It would seem like a weird thing to begin doing now, although maybe under the Trump admin we should expect weird.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on January 14, 2019, 06:05:04 PM
Depends also upon how exaggerated the whole narrative of "Trump is impossible to advise and won't listen to anyone".  If there's any truth to it, leaks seem more plausible; as does sabotage.  (Is it still sabotage when you are trying to stop a saboteur?)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 15, 2019, 10:45:18 AM
So far the only explanation proffered is that the leak was a result of the White House itself allowing it to be released in order to put Iran in its place or something. That's an extremely specific scenerio, and on the balance it doesn't seem to be the most likely explanation, although certainly it's possible. But putting that scenario aside for a moment, does it not seem like the alternative scenario (that it was leaked to the media without authorization) seem outright treasonous? Reasons for such a leak could be to embarass the White House, or else possibly to undermine a non-aggressive policy towards Iran by forcing the issue, so that warhawks could make provoking moves towards Iran on their own even despite the White House's policy. These are both completely plausible as I see it, and I don't know how to evaluate such moves other than in dire terms.

Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 15, 2019, 10:57:14 AM
So far the only explanation proffered is that the leak was a result of the White House itself allowing it to be released in order to put Iran in its place or something. That's an extremely specific scenerio, and on the balance it doesn't seem to be the most likely explanation, although certainly it's possible. But putting that scenario aside for a moment, does it not seem like the alternative scenario (that it was leaked to the media without authorization) seem outright treasonous? Reasons for such a leak could be to embarass the White House, or else possibly to undermine a non-aggressive policy towards Iran by forcing the issue, so that warhawks could make provoking moves towards Iran on their own even despite the White House's policy. These are both completely plausible as I see it, and I don't know how to evaluate such moves other than in dire terms.

Or am I missing something?

You had asked "how would this be legal" and that was the only way. If we consider the question, "why was this done?" That comes under a different heading.

It is not treason to expose something that you think is harmful to the country. It wasn't for Snowden, it wasn't for the Pentagon Papers, and it might not be here. If the leak were an attempt to alert the public that the administration is trying to pull a Gulf of Tonkin Resolution with Iran, it could be a selfless patriotic act that prevents a war with Iran.

We can rehash what treason is, and is not.

Quote
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere,

Releasing this information would not appear to aid Iran particularly much. They didn't release any specifics to the plan, or there's a much stronger case for treason. Not to say it isn't illegal, I suspect it is.

As for using it to influence public policy, I think it is far more likely that it was intended to reign in aggression toward Iran and to make people suspicious about any Administration "act of war" claims they might make.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 15, 2019, 11:16:36 AM
As for using it to influence public policy, I think it is far more likely that it was intended to reign in aggression toward Iran and to make people suspicious about any Administration "act of war" claims they might make.

Interesting idea!
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 15, 2019, 01:55:10 PM
You had asked "how would this be legal"

If the document was classified it might not be treason to release it however it would be Illegal... I think or at least someone should have there security clearance revoked and or fired. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 15, 2019, 03:07:36 PM
You had asked "how would this be legal"

If the document was classified it might not be treason to release it however it would be Illegal... I think or at least someone should have there security clearance revoked and or fired.

I'm not saying I know anything for sure, just really asking questions. But wouldn't it be considered as treason to disclose confidential attack details to the nation targeted by those plans?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 15, 2019, 03:55:41 PM
Quote
But wouldn't it be considered as treason to disclose confidential attack details to the nation targeted by those plans?

Even Snowden's crime isn't treason, as I understand it. Take a look at the language. But nobody released the document anyway, they just described its existence.

Under the statute, an enemy is an organization with which the US is in a declared or open war. So even the Navy spy, Walker, didn't qualify despite giving up lots of military secrets.

A brief search ran me across the following weirdness:

Quote
During the Civil War, Lewis’ paper noted, a professional gambler named William Mumford who lived in New Orleans was the only person formally convicted of treason. Mumford, angered by the replacement of the Confederate flag with an American one at the city’s US Mint building following the Navy’s capture of the state, scaled a flagpole and removed the flag.

“For this action, he was tried by military tribunal on the grounds of treason,” the paper noted. “His overt act was found to be the desecration of the American flag, and since the United States contended the southern states were still a part of the Union, Mumford was a U.S. citizen who owed allegiance to the country.”

Mumford was executed by hanging on June 7, 1862 from the same scaffolding at the Mint building where he’d torn down the flag.

That seems a bit harsh.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 15, 2019, 04:49:33 PM
Quote
I'm not saying I know anything for sure, just really asking questions. But wouldn't it be considered as treason to disclose confidential attack details to the nation targeted by those plans?

Personally I would think so
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 15, 2019, 07:33:18 PM
Quote
But wouldn't it be considered as treason to disclose confidential attack details to the nation targeted by those plans?

Even Snowden's crime isn't treason, as I understand it.

Right, but what he released was information about what he saw as illegal activity by the government towards its own people. Unless the U.S. population is a potential enemy of the state then I don't see how it's analogous to this situation. What I'm asking about is openly telling Iran (since they watch American news) that the government was formulating aggressive plans against them. I mean, let's say for instance the White House was hypothetically planning a surprise first strike against Iran; and now that the news was leaked that battle plans were being drawn, Iran might tighten up their security. Doesn't that sound like aiding a potential enemy? Now, the fact that was hasn't been declared may be a fine point to mention, but at the same time there are no "wars" these days, only police actions.

Quote
Take a look at the language. But nobody released the document anyway, they just described its existence.

That's what it sounds like, yeah. I guess if someone had literally faxed the plan to Tehran then that would be espionage, versus leaking sensitive info to the press which is certainly not espionage but still sounds whack to me. And btw I'll just toss in that I'm in no way pleased about the idea of taunting Iran so I'm not sure how to evaluate the results of this leak, regardless of its intent. But just on the face of it, when I read about this in the news my reaction was basically "wtf?"
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 15, 2019, 09:19:36 PM
Honorable mention should probably go to NBC News, and presumably some other outlets with regards to the hearing for the next AG when questioned about the Mueller Investigation: "I've known Mueller for over 30 years... I don't believe he would take part in a 'witch hunt'"

Headline: AG Nominee "Mueller Probe is not a witch hunt."  ::)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 15, 2019, 09:33:54 PM
Various headlines on the matter, CNBC is about as accurate as I could imagine:

Trump AG pick Barr: Mueller would not be 'involved in a witch hunt'

NBC current headline is:

William Barr: 'Vitally important' for Mueller to complete Russia probe

NY Post bends it harder, implying a stronger conclusion.

William Barr says Mueller’s probe is not a ‘witch hunt’
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 15, 2019, 10:27:23 PM
NBC current headline is:

William Barr: 'Vitally important' for Mueller to complete Russia probe

NY Post bends it harder, implying a stronger conclusion.

William Barr says Mueller’s probe is not a ‘witch hunt’

NBC's evening news ran with the NY Post version, and probably repeated the proclamation about half a dozen different times in the span of about 2 1/2 minutes.  ::)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 18, 2019, 05:19:22 PM
Here's one I'm conflicted on, the video report is solid, the text that accompanies it is a bit different.

Personal "favorite" part of it has to be after 1:48 mark, where he goes into describing how the border wall in the area is ineffective and how it is being defeated, and concludes with(not in text of the report):
https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/US/largest-single-group-migrants-tunnels-border-wall-arizona/story?id=60462672 (https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/US/largest-single-group-migrants-tunnels-border-wall-arizona/story?id=60462672)
Quote
What the Border Patrol needs most is a barrier system, one that includes sensors in the ground, and better camera systems to detect asylum seekers as they come through.

How exactly do you build a barrier system without including barriers, such as, say, a wall?

I don't think the "build the wall" crowd ever said the wall was the be-all and end all for border security. Agents weren't going to be reassigned after it was built. The wall was always "step 1" of a more comprehensive effort to secure the border.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on January 18, 2019, 05:22:52 PM
Skynet controlled hunter killer drones?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on January 18, 2019, 05:33:07 PM
Quote
What the Border Patrol needs most is a barrier system, one that includes sensors in the ground, and better camera systems to detect asylum seekers as they come through.

How exactly do you build a barrier system without including barriers, such as, say, a wall?

Ground sensors and cameras - are referred to as barrier systems and don't include physical walls - they are also called "virtual barriers" or "virtual fences".

Yes it is confusing terminology.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on January 21, 2019, 05:39:36 PM
https://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-house-dem-caucus-chair-hakeem-jeffries-calls-trump-the-grand-wizard-of-1600-pennsylvania-avenue/

JFC.

You all know, I'm pretty damned socialist and don't chime in too often.

For some reason I had to point this out.

And by point out I mean is this guy who is supposed to be on my side tryin to tell people that some punkass bitch needs to be looked down on for some bitch ass idiot claiming us?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on January 21, 2019, 05:46:59 PM
Dear Crunch and SeriatI.

I don't like your ideas. Spend most of my time compos mentos trying to talk some sense but it's a random message board but FI.

Let's just agree to in good faith consider the reasons we all hate the other. No matter what.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 21, 2019, 05:55:35 PM
https://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-house-dem-caucus-chair-hakeem-jeffries-calls-trump-the-grand-wizard-of-1600-pennsylvania-avenue/

JFC.

You all know, I'm pretty damned socialist and don't chime in too often.

For some reason I had to point this out.

And by point out I mean is this guy who is supposed to be on my side tryin to tell people that some punkass bitch needs to be looked down on for some bitch ass idiot claiming us?

He's claiming you, and thinking you're going to believe him.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 22, 2019, 02:56:36 PM
So two absolutely over the top fake media stories over the weekend and no reactions yet?

The first where the media went over the top in reporting on "bombshell" yet unverified reports based on leaks from the Special Counsel's office.  Where the fact they couldn't be verified didn't stop them from being run, with plenty of talking head's and even Democratic politicians with the "if true" Trump needs to be impeached immediately line.  Whole story blown up by the Special Counsel's office issuing a statement refuting the basis.

Dozens of articles out there, even retractions, but I'm linking this one because it frames a particularly issue that makes it even worse in my book for NBC and MSNBC - their $400 million investment in Buzzfeed (the group that broke the story).

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/nbc-raises-eyebrows-over-400-million-relationship-with-buzzfeed (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/nbc-raises-eyebrows-over-400-million-relationship-with-buzzfeed)

The second one of course is a group of teens that were singled out by half of Hollywood and most of the media for an absolute orgy of hate over their racially insensitive confrontation of a Native American man (as seen on a YouTube clip).  Even open calls for doxxing teenagers and "jokes" about killing them.

Problem, this time, was that full clips also existed, some an hour long, that show that the claims of the Native American man that the kids were changing hate turned out to be false, that showed in fact that they were being harassed by activists and that in fact it was the man himself who walked up into the kids faces while they were waiting for their bus to create the scene in the first place.

The fakeness of the news is beyond the pale at this point.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 22, 2019, 03:01:22 PM
Whole story blown up by the Special Counsel's office issuing a statement refuting the basis.

I just want to double down on this.  The Special Counsel's office has been a remarkably quite group, there's no real way anyone could have anticipated they'd make a statement.  Without that statement this story is still playing and manipulating the whole country.  This makes this almost criminal to me.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 22, 2019, 03:22:07 PM
Problem, this time, was that full clips also existed, some an hour long, that show that the claims of the Native American man that the kids were changing hate turned out to be false, that showed in fact that they were being harassed by activists and that in fact it was the man himself who walked up into the kids faces while they were waiting for their bus to create the scene in the first place.

The fakeness of the news is beyond the pale at this point.

This one is indeed egregious and is fake news at its best: as in, literal made up facts meant to inspire hatred. Where are the arrests of those printing such stories which have potentially created real danger and harm to those MAGA-sporting kids? KIDS! I think this is far more criminal than a typical anti-Trump propaganda piece (assuming it was that). We're talking about inciting a literal lynch mob to harass high school kids over made-up facts.

I watched some video footage about the altercation. In one instance a fellow from the native-American group was haranguing a MAGA kid about how the white man stole all this land, and the white kid was replying with what he understood to be the history of native-American migrations to North America from Asia...it was actually inspiring to see the altercation involving argumentative historical points to an extent, verus what the news portrays as a hate-filled confrontation. The MAGA kid was comparatively calm, and the yelling was mostly due to the fact that it was friggin loud and one could only converse and be heard at all by shouting. Of course that was just a few minutes out of what I saw was a 2 hour video. Overall it seemed that what was happening was various protest groups sort of physically near enough to each other to create "a situation", but it hardly looked aggressive. If there was one aggressive aspect to the event it was the black Jewish group waving their signs around and voicing speach about how all white Americans are descended from homosexuals and are all gay themselves, and serve the devil. Now how curious that the "neo-Nazi" Trump kids were the focus of media attention, and not the group that was much more the locus of the event, and whose speech was basically anathema to almost all Americans? Ah, but they happened to be black...so I guess that makes them untargetable by the media? Or was it just that it was a juicy chance to get a good story built up around kids wearing the maligned MAGA hats? As I reflect on it I think the entire basis of the story was about the hats. Can you imagine?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 22, 2019, 03:24:00 PM
I was highly skeptical about the Buzzfeed report when it came out. I thought it was irresponsible for media outlets to publish on it without independent verification. Having them add a disclaimer (Blah blah news was not able to independently verify), is a cop out.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 22, 2019, 03:43:44 PM
So while on my phone, not going to hunt down supporting links but two BIG media mea culpa moments from the press in the last week:

The BuzzFeed report claiming large amounts of evidence supporting a claim that Trump ordered Cohen to perjure himself before Congress about Russia.

Then after the Mueller Investigation issued an unprecedented press release saying the BuzzFeed report was wildly inaccurate... We get item number two:

A high school touring the Washington Mall, many in MAGA Attire, cross paths with an Anti-Trump protest. After They were insulted, harangued and had racial epithets hurled AT THEM, one of the students has a Tribal Elder get in his face.

The MSM gets ahold of the clip of the Tribal Elder in the kids face, accusing the school group of surrounding the Elder and disrespecting him, and genetically make a media circus of things condemning the MAGA teens. At least until a video of the event in it's more complete context became available.

Of note from my "White Privilege" perspective, the teen was placed in an awkward situation with no real good option beyond running away, and as far as options go, that one sucks.

The other thing is watching the other teens and their reactions, given they're white teenagers from Kentucky with virtually no context for how to "appropriately respond" to a Native American banging on a drum. I think a number of them were "getting down" with the drumbeat and trying to accompany the Elder(clapping in rhythm with the Drum beat, and some other things), but even that was being skewed as "disrespect" in the mass media. Which could be valid for some, but I doubt it's true for most. Also bearing in mind he(the elder) sought them out, not the other way around.

Also related to that, why did the popular media seem compelled to also always describe the Tribal Elder as "A Vietnam Veteran and Tribal Elder" as though they were trying to make confrontation also about the Elder's Veteran status? Particularly given it looked like he was in Tribal Regalia and likely wasn't wearing anything that most people would be able to use to identify him as a Veteran from Vietnam?

Keep in mind, I am asking as a Veteran myself.

Edit, looks like this came up while I was typing and off doing some other things.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on January 22, 2019, 04:16:54 PM
Mostly trying to stay out of this one till the dust settles.  (as that's the largest cause of all the polarizing BS) but...

The brief interview on my local news (he's from this area) with Nathan Phillips indicated that he was trying to interject himself between two groups he believed were likely to take a more ugly turn if he did not. 

Beyond that, it's hard to say because the man spoke slowly and the time allotted for the piece was short so, to me at least, the interview itself bordered on disrespectful to him as the reporter tried to keep the ball rolling...

You make an interesting point about the highlighting of his veteran status.  We like to believe that a vet deserves to not be disrespected, but if it wasn't obvious he was one, why bring it up?  Probably because it preys on sentiment and feeds outrage.   :-\  Gotta love the business of selling views on pages.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 22, 2019, 10:14:53 PM
This is an example of the manipulative way the media spins a story that is completely true and they even give all the exonerating details in the story but for anyone who only reads the headline or doesn't care about the devil in the details the media's agenda gets duly promulgated. Maybe to turn a phrase, instead of the devil is in the details, the devil is in the headlines. The saving grace may or may not be in the body of the story but a great number of people never go far enough to find it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/passenger-confronts-gop-congressman-over-225037260.html

Passenger Confronts GOP Congressman Over Flying First Class During Shutdown

------------------------------------------------------

The headline incites anger because some rich Republican flies first class living large on the taxpayers' dime while the hard working little people go without a paycheck and then the truth is buried in the story about how it was a regular coach ticket with an automatic frequent flyer upgrade and there was no additional cost to taxpayers. This is perhaps even more dangerous than fake news; true news that is nevertheless distorted and manipulative.





Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on January 23, 2019, 07:26:31 AM
Quote
Also related to that, why did the popular media seem compelled to also always describe the Tribal Elder as "A Vietnam Veteran and Tribal Elder" as though they were trying to make confrontation also about the Elder's Veteran status? Particularly given it looked like he was in Tribal Regalia and likely wasn't wearing anything that most people would be able to use to identify him as a Veteran from Vietnam?

It’s a way to build more sympathy for Phillips, make him seem double plus deserving of respect based on the way he was treated when he returned from the jungles of Vietnam. It fluffs up the story, put a little more meat on the bone.

Except, like so much of this story, it’s mostly a lie. Phillips was a marine. Thats true. Everything else is bull*censored*. He was a refrigerator mechanic, stationed in Topeka KS, Lincoln NB, and Southern California.  He never went outside the continental US. He went AWOL 3 times. After 4 years, he separated as a private. This is the military record of a *censored* up. By playing off vietnam veteran status, claiming to be a recon ranger(LOL), he’s engaging in stolen valor.

The whole stry is one massive lie by the media.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 23, 2019, 09:20:34 AM
I think the thing about these teens is, they're children. If they aren't fully capable of expressing themselves clearly, or their ideas are not perfectly honed, then let's remember they are children. It is up to the adults to know better and not create a bad situation, or make one worse.

We can be thankful that situation didn't erupt into violence, I guess Anti-fa stayed home.

This seemed like it dragged on a long time. I would think the chaperones for the trip would have got students the heck out of there once the other group started to verbally assault them. Instead they think its a good idea to have them start chanting. It is possible they had nowhere to go, I found one report saying they were waiting on buses. I can still imagine there was somewhere else they could have moved to.

In general, I think it is probably a bad idea to have a school sanctioned protest field trip.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: yossarian22c on January 23, 2019, 09:35:43 AM
I think the thing about these teens is, they're children. If they aren't fully capable of expressing themselves clearly, or their ideas are not perfectly honed, then let's remember they are children. It is up to the adults to know better and not create a bad situation, or make one worse.

I agree, and I think the media should stop making national stories out of "teen" says/does stupid offensive thing. Leave it up to the adults in their life to correct their behavior or simply growing up and figuring stuff out. I think the media should make a concerted effort not to escalate these stories from local/social media to national, the same way they now make a deliberate effort not to say the names of mass shooters. Teens are young and sometimes foolish, they need to be taught or simply allowed to mature, not shamed nationally in ways that can follow them for years to come.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 23, 2019, 02:01:39 PM
Quote
Also related to that, why did the popular media seem compelled to also always describe the Tribal Elder as "A Vietnam Veteran and Tribal Elder" as though they were trying to make confrontation also about the Elder's Veteran status? Particularly given it looked like he was in Tribal Regalia and likely wasn't wearing anything that most people would be able to use to identify him as a Veteran from Vietnam?

It’s a way to build more sympathy for Phillips, make him seem double plus deserving of respect based on the way he was treated when he returned from the jungles of Vietnam. It fluffs up the story, put a little more meat on the bone.

Except, like so much of this story, it’s mostly a lie. Phillips was a marine. Thats true. Everything else is bull*censored*. He was a refrigerator mechanic, stationed in Topeka KS, Lincoln NB, and Southern California.  He never went outside the continental US. He went AWOL 3 times. After 4 years, he separated as a private. This is the military record of a *censored* up. By playing off vietnam veteran status, claiming to be a recon ranger(LOL), he’s engaging in stolen valor.

The whole stry is one massive lie by the media.

Which would explain why NBC did NOT call him a Vietnam Veteran last night, conveniently dropping the matter and pretending there was nothing amiss. I considered it odd, but not worth commenting on, now I know why.

Although the quality of reporting being what it is, I wonder who made the Vietnam Veteran claim, he may have claimed veteran status(correct), and may have provided the time frame(also correct), but failed to mention the where. Which Vietnam Era vets should be more than aware of how easily people draw wrong conclusions from there, and be taking steps to prevent it.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 23, 2019, 02:49:08 PM
Quote
In May of last year, the Catholic diocese ruled just hours before Holy Cross High School’s graduation that the openly gay valedictorian [Christian Bales] and the student council president could not give their planned speeches at the Covington school’s official graduation ceremony.



Bales, now 19 and a freshman at the University of Louisville, spoke to NBC News on Tuesday about last year’s incident and the recent viral video that has dragged Covington back into the national spotlight.

“I was not surprised at all,” Bales plainly told NBC News when asked for his reaction to last week’s D.C. confrontation. “It was only a matter of time that something this school community did would blow up to this degree, and I think they need to be held accountable.”
 
Bales claims Covington Catholic is “notorious for being a not-well-disciplined school,” and he described the Diocese of Covington as “archaic.”

So, Breitbart is up in arms over several points.

Quote
NBC News does not concede the fact that Bales submitted the speech late, instead framing it only as an allegation — an excuse from the diocese.
Nowhere does NBC News reveal that Bales’ speech was a Parkland-inspired diatribe about gun control.
And now we come to my favorite part….

Are you ready for this…

Seriously, because this is a wowser…

Christian Bales was not a student at Covington High School.
Christian Bales graduated from Holy Cross High School, a completely different high school.
If his speech had been approved, he would have given it at Holy Cross High School, not at Covington High School.
Holy Cross High is run by the same Catholic diocese as Covington High, but they are two completely different schools.
NBC News bombards the story with more than a dozen references to “Covington” but goes out of its way to obscure the fact Bales attended a completely different school…

So, huh. Let's break it down. Let's talk about which school he goes to first. The very first line says "Holy Cross High School's graduation". The Breitbart author seems to think this has been obscured. Both schools are run by the same people, they're not completely unrelated. The language is 100% unambiguous.

The bit about whether the speech was late amounts to a dispute - officials said it was late, the students said they were on time. This is in the original piece, NBC left it out according to this quote.

It seems they are making a big deal about him being gay, insinuating discrimination. But unless scores are fully publicized, wouldn't they have avoided making him valedictorian?

He didn't advocate for gun control, his original text only mentions that another student gave an address to honor the Parkland students lives.


So you can call the NBC piece misleading by omission and by insinuation.

Meanwhile the Breitbart piece badly mischaracterizes the speech material and I think goes a bit far about where he went to school, suggesting that makes it invalid to talk to him about what he thinks of the diocese.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 23, 2019, 03:17:27 PM
I don't in the slightest see the relevance between Bales' story and the incident this past weekend. It strikes me yet again of media outlets using children to achieve their ends. They are not only making up reality as they go along, but are dragging young people into the middle of it. These people are making Trump look like a boy scout. So what's the connection supposed to be, that because he's upset with the local Diocese (not the school!) he'll talk smack about their other school when it's convenient? Well of course he will, duh. And naturally the media will prey on it.

Incidentally, I read his fairly short banned speech, and it was fairly activist and charged in content. It was about how young people are going to "win" going forward, and the older generation better get ready to hear their voices and not be silenced. Now while this sentiment is not a terrible one, I also would agree that presenting a basically rebellious message at a Catholic high school is probably not appropriate to cap off what is supposed to be an academic graduation. Actually I sympathize with his rebellious attitude toward 'the powers that be'...but I can also understand a conservative school not wanting it to be thought that they endorse a message that basically says that young vs old is the next battle to be waged, and that the young will win. A valedictorian message is not supposed to be a personal activist screed, regardless of how well-reasoned it is.

But of course that's all beside the point. Even if he's correct that Covington Catholic is a disorganized school program...what has that got to do with anything? That the buses being late is the cause of all this? I guess that would be one way to look at things, and in terms of organizing logistics I guess we might agree that if a scheduling foul-up resulted in those kids standing around for a long time then that could be said to be partially to blame. However it's clear enough that any reporting on this is going to be focused about how the kids themselves are *guilty* and that they are the product of a bad school system. I highly doubt the purpose of such stories would be to paint the MAGA kids of being victims of school disorganization! I only watched maybe 10 min of the video, including the "drum sequence", but from my perspective the kids were actually well-behaved. So yeah, this is all manufactured garbage.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 23, 2019, 03:40:52 PM
Quote
Incidentally, I read his fairly short banned speech, and it was fairly activist and charged in content. It was about how young people are going to "win" going forward, and the older generation better get ready to hear their voices and not be silenced.

Except that's a lot of what the diocese is about. Remember, they put their students on buses to have their voices heard. Most such speeches talk about the impact that the graduating class is going to have on the world, which generally includes social issues. Improving the environment, donating time to their communities or being active in non-profits.

The only real reason to call this guy up, and its not a strong connection, is to point out that the diocese selectively supports free speech by students based on what they are saying.

Mostly, I think they frantically cast around to find any warm body to talk to. Like when I saw Tom Clancy giving an interview on terrorism shortly after 9/11.

Of course, my school didn't even let us wear ballcaps regardless of the logo, but that was a different generation.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on January 23, 2019, 03:42:04 PM
Well-behaved?  Or "within norms"?  I might be willing to go so far as to say the latter, given the situation/environment.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 23, 2019, 04:02:45 PM
Well-behaved?  Or "within norms"?  I might be willing to go so far as to say the latter, given the situation/environment.

Well I guess it depends what we're talking about. Having worked with kids for years I can imagine many teenagers who would resort to outright trolling people in such a situation, amusing themselves because they're bored, and so forth. I didn't really see any of that in the video parts I watched. Although they were, in some sense, 'talking back' to both other parties present, it didn't seem to me to be going in the direction either of vitriol or trolling. For my part I'd call that above average, but you're right that I probably should not be suggesting that they were little angels either.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 23, 2019, 04:15:06 PM
Quote
Incidentally, I read his fairly short banned speech, and it was fairly activist and charged in content. It was about how young people are going to "win" going forward, and the older generation better get ready to hear their voices and not be silenced.

Except that's a lot of what the diocese is about. Remember, they put their students on buses to have their voices heard.

The diocese is about how young people are going to teach old people a lesson? I find that hard to believe. I'm not saying that such a speech shouldn't include anything about activism, especially if it involves the kind of activism the school actually engages in, like the March for Life. And also it seems to be the case that the diocese doesn't organize these excursions, but that the individual schools do. To what extent the diocese is involved with it at all is unclear, but I don't see direct evidence that the diocese is "about" activism.

Quote
Most such speeches talk about the impact that the graduating class is going to have on the world, which generally includes social issues. Improving the environment, donating time to their communities or being active in non-profits.

Well the claim made by the Diocese is that the content was not in keeping with their teaching, not that it included stuff about improving the world. Reading through it, there seemed to be some stuff that shouldn't have been any problem for them, so either the "young vs old" content, or the gun control sentiments, were considered to be not in keeping with their teaching. I can't be sure, but that's all I could surmise from looking at it. Still, the fact that "doing stuff for the community" may be normal valedictorian content, that doesn't mean that literally any type of comment about community life fits in with that. Assuming for the moment that it was the gun stuff and the old vs young stuff that bothered them, the argument would be that these are not sentiments that represent what the school wants its graduating class to take away with them. Taking it at face value I guess it makes sense; assuming we bypass the possibility that they silenced him simply because he's gay. I assume that this latter point is the implication being made by the press. Even if it's true that doesn't link it to the Covington Catholic incident intelligibly.

Quote
The only real reason to call this guy up, and its not a strong connection, is to point out that the diocese selectively supports free speech by students based on what they are saying.

I guess? But I bet you that any school would be just as selective about "free speech" as this one was, just about different topics. Do you think a liberal school would allow a student to get up and delivery a valedictory speech saying that abortion is evil?

Quote
Mostly, I think they frantically cast around to find any warm body to talk to. Like when I saw Tom Clancy giving an interview on terrorism shortly after 9/11.

And this is the optimistic interpretation. The cynical one is that they'll prey on anyone to get their fake story.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 23, 2019, 05:03:21 PM
TheDrake, I'm not sure I understand your complaint on this point.

Quote
In May of last year, the Catholic diocese ruled just hours before Holy Cross High School’s graduation that the openly gay valedictorian [Christian Bales] and the student council president could not give their planned speeches at the Covington school’s official graduation ceremony.

That seems deliberately drafted to mislead a reader into believing that Christian Bales was supposed to be a speaker at the Covington school that is currently nationally relevant, while being able to point back later at the literal truth as a defense against the intended take away.

That's a blatant example of intentional media manipulation

And what did Breitbart's say?

Quote
Are you ready for this…

Seriously, because this is a wowser…

Christian Bales was not a student at Covington High School.
Christian Bales graduated from Holy Cross High School, a completely different high school.
If his speech had been approved, he would have given it at Holy Cross High School, not at Covington High School.
Holy Cross High is run by the same Catholic diocese as Covington High, but they are two completely different schools.
NBC News bombards the story with more than a dozen references to “Covington” but goes out of its way to obscure the fact Bales attended a completely different school…

I think you'll note that Brietbart's statement is every bit as literally true as the original article, and it's pointing out a deliberate crafting  of the first piece to create a misleading impression.

And to be clear, I "fell for it" when I first read it as well, because that was the intent of the drafting.

Quote
So, huh. Let's break it down. Let's talk about which school he goes to first. The very first line says "Holy Cross High School's graduation". The Breitbart author seems to think this has been obscured. Both schools are run by the same people, they're not completely unrelated. The language is 100% unambiguous.

That is such a weasel answer.  The language is both 100% "unambiguous" and 100% designed to be misleading.  There are plenty of statements that are literal truth and yet result in an intentional misunderstanding on the listener that presents a false claim being believed.

There is no chance that was not deliberately crafted to mislead.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 23, 2019, 06:04:44 PM
How would you rewrite it? I guess this might call it out more clearly (along with an edit to remove the highly misleading openly gay comment)

In May of last year, the Catholic diocese ruled just hours before Holy Cross High School’s graduation that the valedictorian [Christian Bales] and the student council president could not give their planned speeches at Holy Cross, one the schools run by the Covington diocese, official graduation ceremony.

The fact that the same people run both schools is relevant. They made the decision to cancel the the speech, the same people made the decision to give permission and promote the Right to Life march.

If someone wrote a story about a teacher who got fired for their conservative views, and then they interviewed someone else at a different school in the district, would you be up in arms? Regardless of whether that teacher had an axe to grind, or faced discipline that might or might not have anything to do with those views?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 23, 2019, 06:26:53 PM
Mostly, I think they frantically cast around to find any warm body to talk to. Like when I saw Tom Clancy giving an interview on terrorism shortly after 9/11.

Of course, my school didn't even let us wear ballcaps regardless of the logo, but that was a different generation.

I remember the Tom Clancy interview on 9/11, he was doing good for the first couple minutes then he ran of the rails and straight into crazy conspiracy town live on National TV. The look on the Anchor's face was comedy gold as I recall, they quickly segwayed into another segment.

As to the MAGA Caps, they were there for Women's March, obviously they went to the Conservative one rather than the Liberal one, and someone thought MAGA attire was a great idea.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 24, 2019, 10:04:58 AM
How would you rewrite it?

First of all, this wasn't random.  Bales story was covered nationally last year, and it would have popped up when they searched for Covington.  It was a story the media wanted you to care about.  As I see it, it boiled down to the following:

Catholic School kid submits speech from graduation inconsistent with church teachings.

School prohibits speech.

Dispute about whether speech was timely submitted, which ordinarily is probably a technicality, but here could have been true because Bales knew they would reject it and was trying to game the system (or for any number of innocent reasons).

Why bring that up?  Cause the story didn't get the viral attention the media wanted it to have with it's anti-Catholic message.  To paraphrase a former President, never let a good crisis go to waste.

Better question, why bring up Holy Cross at all?  Is there any evidence that they were co-run (doesn't seem to be), I have 2 different catholic schools in my town, and as far as I can tell the closest level of common management could be in Rome.  Is the implication that it's proof of "guilt" at one school that the other had an issue - that isn't even remotely related (rejecting a speech at a catholic school for being inconsistent with catholic doctrine has nothing to do with this).  Would you take it as evidence that someone is guilty of murder that their second cousin was accused of a different murder a year earlier?  Or that a girl probably wasn't assaulted because the other girls that live on her street are prostitutes?

Quote
I guess this might call it out more clearly (along with an edit to remove the highly misleading openly gay comment)

This isn't an "I guess" situation.  In a context where the sole reason the story is written now is to impute community guilt to Covington, Kentucky and more particularly the Catholics that live there, a reference that is designed to make the casual reader confused is manipulative.

Quote
In May of last year, the Catholic diocese ruled just hours before Holy Cross High School’s graduation that the valedictorian [Christian Bales] and the student council president could not give their planned speeches at Holy Cross, one the schools run by the Covington diocese, official graduation ceremony.

"Just hours before..." makes it sound like they did something unreasonable, yet the published accounts from the school say the speech was submitted late.  How reasonable is that focus without context?  Intentional manipulation.

Why throw in "openly gay" at all?  Pretty clear that the implied bias in that loaded formulation didn't stop him from attending the school or becoming its valedictorian, which lest we forget almost certainly meant that teachers had opportunities to apply subjective grading - like on essays - that could have derailed him.  So the implication there is more likely than not just a dog whistle, ergo intentional manipulation.

"..and the student body president.." "their  planned speeches"  The student body president isn't named - why is that - nor is there any reference to her sexual orientation - why is that - only that her speech was also prevented - why is that.  It's because both speeches were barred for being inconsistent with catholic doctrine, which should have been a no brainer at a Catholic School graduation.  But that part of the story undercuts the message that the people of Covington are bad, by putting forward a rational alternative explanation that most people might believe was the real truth, and not therefore want the author wanted to happen.  Ergo, they wrote it to intentionally manipulate instead.

And then we get to the "at the Covington school's" graduation.  In an article that is only being published and relevant to the conversation because of a controversy involving Covington Catholic High School, which is what brought people to this article in the first place.  It leads a quick reader to confuse the two (as I did).  But more significantly, to write it in that way, instead of the more common "at Holy Cross's" graduation also reflects an intentional decision about the important part of the information to convey, was "Covington" not "Holy Cross."  If Holy Cross had been in the same diocese and in a different town, it would have been written differently (probably with reference to the "Covington diocese").  That's an intentional manipulation.

No one should have to unpack a single sentence to that level to see the bias it's built in.

Quote
The fact that the same people run both schools is relevant. They made the decision to cancel the the speech, the same people made the decision to give permission and promote the Right to Life march.

Is it true though?  Can you show that the "same people" made these different decisions?  Pretty sure the catholic church's policy on abortion is set in Rome not Covington diocese.

I think the idea that a religious school would allow kids to protest consistent with their faith is not a troubling matter.  I found it far more troubling that public schools excused absences connected with children leaving to protest a Constitutional right (the right to bear arms) and even engaging in shaming of students who refused to go.  Why are people more bothered now?

Quote
If someone wrote a story about a teacher who got fired for their conservative views, and then they interviewed someone else at a different school in the district, would you be up in arms?

If a conservative person was fired, and they wrote a story on how a teacher's pro life club was refused funding from a different school in the district a year earlier, I'd pretty look at the person as stupid for connecting unrelated actions, particularly as the linked item had nothing to do with the current issue.  How about you?

Quote
Regardless of whether that teacher had an axe to grind, or faced discipline that might or might not have anything to do with those views?

There's nothing about my view that ignores context.  Meanwhile linking the Holy Cross story can only be done by ignoring all context.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 24, 2019, 10:38:13 AM
Quote
I found it far more troubling that public schools excused absences connected with children leaving to protest a Constitutional right (the right to bear arms) and even engaging in shaming of students who refused to go.  Why are people more bothered now?

I don't disagree with that. I would also be upset about that, and especially if they hired a bus with district money to bring them to the protest.

I don't much like it that students were running around protesting with striking teachers in LA.

On the rest of it, I'm just never going to see it from your perspective. I understand you don't like the narrative that the people of Covington are a bunch of backward conservatives, any more than other people don't like it when people at Universities are portrayed as a bunch of radical progressives bent on destroying America. It isn't possible to write any story completely devoid of some perspective.

I could bicker and argue point by point, but I don't think that's going to progress anywhere useful. I definitely agree that this is not an example of good journalism. We just disagree on the level of badness and outrage.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 24, 2019, 10:52:39 AM
I don't care one way or the other about the narrative that the people of Covington, Kentucky are backwards conservatives.  Unlike many, I've been to Kentucky and the areas there round.

What troubles me is the intellectual inconsistency.  How someone can easily see the argument that how a woman dresses has no merit in determining if she was assaulted or not, yet, not see that the idea that labeling the people of a town as "bad" has no merit in determining if they were mistreated in another context.

I shouldn't be surprised, it's the logical extension of the idea for instance that it's okay to punch a Nazi because Nazi's shouldn't have rights, but it's a huge fall from the American ideal that - at one point - had the ACLU defending the rights of Nazi's to march, because it was the right thing to do.

There is literally nothing about declaring the people of Covington bad, other than as a dog whistle that shows the liberal original sin that can never be debated, that is relevant to understand who was at fault.  The fact that we aren't having a national discussion about black adult activists making racist attacks on children, or that if the kids were native Americans and the man with a drum had been white this story would have been even bigger news and flipped on its head as to who was at fault, is incredibly depressing. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on January 24, 2019, 11:41:51 AM
Headlines should have read:  "Multiple groups of agitators with differing political views act poorly towards each other"

None of them were blameless.  None of them paragons of virtue.  None of them victims.  All of them looking to prove their views/morality is "the best" and things got messy.  But... not violent.  So there's that.

The End
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on January 24, 2019, 12:03:12 PM
Headlines should have read:  "Multiple groups of agitators with differing political views act poorly towards each other"

No they shouldn't have.  That's a lie of the left, whenever they get caught engaging in bad behavior the media recharacterizes as a problem we "all" have.

If there were to be any headlines, it should have been:

"School kids on field trip harassed by racists who picked on them because of their skin color."

or,

"Media activists create misleading article based on photo out of context."

Quote
None of them were blameless.

No one is blameless, but in this context the kids have no blame.

Quote
None of them paragons of virtue.

No one is a paragon of virtue, but in this case we have actual racists on one side - which per the understanding based on Trump's statement that there were good people on both sides, should mean clearly that the racists can not have "good people" on their side.  Or is that lesson also one sided?

Quote
None of them victims.

The boys were literally victims in this encounter, subjected to racial attacks.  They were also victims of an activist media - there were literal calls to have them suspended that their administrators back home were carrying through on until the the full truth came out.

Again a real consequence barely averted by the truth because of the lies of adults.

Quote
All of them looking to prove their views/morality is "the best" and things got messy.  But... not violent.  So there's that.

The End

Lack of violence doesn't excuse this.  We all have the RIGHT to try and prove in the market place of ideas that our views are the best.  Period.  That's not an excuse for this behavior.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on January 24, 2019, 01:15:41 PM
Quote
If there were to be any headlines, it should have been:

"School kids on field trip harassed by racists who picked on them because of their skin color."
Which tells, part of the story.

That you find the kids blameless is a difference in opinion.

Quote
Lack of violence doesn't excuse this.
Didn't say that it excused anything.  Was just glad it wasn't worse.

It could have been.  I think Nathan would have been better served getting in the faces of the group trying to bait the kids rather than the kids themselves but here we are.  Maybe that choice, was the least bad decision.  Maybe he just got drawn to the MAGA hat like a moth to a flame, IDK.

Quote
"Media activists create misleading article based on photo out of context."
Maybe "media activist sees opportunity to ignite controversy", but context didn't change my opinion much.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 24, 2019, 01:56:08 PM
I will absolutely agree that the headline should have read "Radical racial supremacy group verbally assaults students at national mall". Then interviewed someone from SPLC about the fact that these groups "condemn whites as evil personified, deserving only death or slavery". Then talk to the FBI about how close the resemblance is to white supremacist groups.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 24, 2019, 02:11:07 PM
Breitbart:

Quote
Missouri Gym Owner: Veteran’s ‘Offensive’ Trump Shirt Made Patrons ‘Uncomfortable’

Seems like NBC isn't the only one who likes to highlight someone's veteran status in an irrelevant context.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 24, 2019, 02:41:54 PM
Breitbart:

Quote
Missouri Gym Owner: Veteran’s ‘Offensive’ Trump Shirt Made Patrons ‘Uncomfortable’

Seems like NBC isn't the only one who likes to highlight someone's veteran status in an irrelevant context.

Depends on the T-Shirt, being a Vet, and part of the crewmembers association's facebook page for the Ship I served on, I get to see a LOT of the t-shirt offerings that cater towards veterans.

There ARE plenty of T-Shirt offering running from "potentially offensive" to "obviously offensive" which also make it very clear the T-shirt is intended to be worn by a Veteran. So in other words, the Shirt also makes it clear the person wearing it either is, or should be a Veteran, while also going about being offensive to certain groups.

So "Veteran wears offensive T-Shirt" may be very relevant.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 24, 2019, 02:55:39 PM
Good points, but it was just a generic campaign shirt. Breitbart's manipulation was that you should be even more outraged because it happened to a veteran (TYFYS).
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 24, 2019, 03:56:03 PM
Shouldn't you be more outraged because it happened to a Veteran?  That Veteran offered his life to protect his (and your) right to express his political support by wearing that t-shirt.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 24, 2019, 04:16:44 PM
Shouldn't you be more outraged because it happened to a Veteran?  That Veteran offered his life to protect his (and your) right to express his political support by wearing that t-shirt.

Depends on context. Generally speaking, Verteran status shouldn't matter at all. Only instance where things differ is Veteran Specific Entitlements, and instances where Veteran status was being used to deny services or otherwise be a jerk. Do note: That cuts both ways, much like some minorities use their minority status as an excuse to be ---wipes (like those "black hebrews" last weekend), some veterans use their status as veterans to be wipes as well.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 26, 2019, 08:51:04 PM
Quote
Also related to that, why did the popular media seem compelled to also always describe the Tribal Elder as "A Vietnam Veteran and Tribal Elder" as though they were trying to make confrontation also about the Elder's Veteran status? Particularly given it looked like he was in Tribal Regalia and likely wasn't wearing anything that most people would be able to use to identify him as a Veteran from Vietnam?

It’s a way to build more sympathy for Phillips, make him seem double plus deserving of respect based on the way he was treated when he returned from the jungles of Vietnam. It fluffs up the story, put a little more meat on the bone.

Except, like so much of this story, it’s mostly a lie. Phillips was a marine. Thats true. Everything else is bull*censored*. He was a refrigerator mechanic, stationed in Topeka KS, Lincoln NB, and Southern California.  He never went outside the continental US. He went AWOL 3 times. After 4 years, he separated as a private. This is the military record of a *censored* up. By playing off vietnam veteran status, claiming to be a recon ranger(LOL), he’s engaging in stolen valor.

The whole stry is one massive lie by the media.

Update on Mr. Phillips, he's no stranger to protests, he's been doing the protester/activist thing for years now.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3016299

Lost the link to the article, but there is news archival media showing him present protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline among other things.

Did love the Facebook Video Feed of him leading a march trying to enter the National Cathedral in Washington last weekend, where one of his talking points was the Catholic Church apologize for its role in the abuse of Native Americans in the United States... Uh, not sure what history books he's been reading, but the Catholic Church only held meaningful power in portions of the United States that previously belonged to France, Spain, and/or Mexico in the past, and once it was part of the United States, that influence didn't tend to go very far for a long time...
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on January 27, 2019, 07:57:29 PM
Regardless of what happened in the long term, the Spanish Empire came in and did a lot of harm to native people. A whole lot of that was under the cloak of their church.

No matter who controls the land today, I can't find fault with him calling out the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2019, 12:49:41 AM
With this point:

Spanish Empire came in and did a lot of harm to native people.

And then this:

Quote
A whole lot of that was under the cloak of their church.

I find it stunning that you then make this conclusion:

Quote
No matter who controls the land today, I can't find fault with him calling out the Catholic Church.

That's like saying that powerful people in Washington have done bad things to foreign people, and that they often do so under the cloak of being Christians (such as Bush43 claiming to be doing God's work), and that therefore the Christian faith is to blame for Iraq 2.0.

Sigh.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on January 28, 2019, 07:23:45 AM
Regardless of what happened in the long term, the Spanish Empire came in and did a lot of harm to native people. A whole lot of that was under the cloak of their church.

No matter who controls the land today, I can't find fault with him calling out the Catholic Church.

Tha majority was done under the cloak of royal power. Give that a pass, go straight to the favoted stalking horse.

I’m continually amazed at how the left has such hatred for christianity and love of islam.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2019, 09:07:05 AM
I'm continually amazed at how the right is terrified of sharia law, but constantly promote how Christianity should inform our politics.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on January 28, 2019, 09:13:11 AM
Not to derail anything, but can you toss out a quick example or two of the love for Islam by the left? 

There's obviously a lot of people trying to reign back in open vilification of all practitioners of a religion, but there's little to "love" IMO.  I won't try and contest your assertion of hate for Christianity.  I am certainly no fan.  (though hate is too strong a word)  And most people I know are Christians, (to one degree of upbringing or practice) and I don't hate them because of it.

In so far as Islam may be spoken FOR and Christianity against by some on the left, I believe it's to drive home their desire for a secular government.  'Obviously' we aren't open equally to ALL religion, so therefore we should strive to curtail the power/influence of ALL religion.  So they may "love" having an object lesson, but do you think they see something they love in the teachings of Islam as a whole?  As in, more so than Christianity?  (seems a stretch to me)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on January 28, 2019, 09:34:23 AM
I know Church made some notable protests to the Spanish crown over treatment of natives in the New World. But that was relatively early on and I don't know the more recent history.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2019, 11:14:57 AM
In the US, the catholic church was indeed a minority and one with relatively little power. They did join the bandwagon along with the protestants as far as forced conversion, participating wholeheartedly. They are not uniquely culpable, but they definitely bear some responsibility.

This started with Christopher Columbus, so it pretty much goes all the way back to the beginning of the colonial era.

Recent popes have denied any wrongdoing.

Quote
But unlike his ultimate apology for his words on Islam, Benedict’s response also repeated his contention that Catholicism in South America had favorably “shaped their culture for 500 years.”
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2019, 11:28:49 AM
In the US, the catholic church was indeed a minority and one with relatively little power. They did join the bandwagon along with the protestants as far as forced conversion, participating wholeheartedly. They are not uniquely culpable, but they definitely bear some responsibility.

As with anything, many humans start problems and do dumb things. This isn't an institutional problem, but a general one of the species. That any Church organization would be guilty of the same should come as no surprise. However as with all things, the history of these matters is never as simplistic as it's bandied about in popular culture. Every time I hear detailed accounts of anything ranging from European colonialism, to Imperialist views of native people, to religious persecution, the details always draw out that the peoples of those times weren't the simple monsters we'd make of them. While it's no doubt true that human history is rife with real barbarism, it's never just as simple as X organization was evil or malevolent. Often there were factors in play that seemed to make sense to them at the time. It seems to me that for every instance of condemning past humanity of atrocity there an equal measure of recognizing progress, along with the conceit that because we are alive and they are dead that we are inherently superior in all ways and can glibly call ourselves enlightened as compared to their savagery. People of all ages have engaged in this kind of self-aggrandization.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on January 28, 2019, 11:37:41 AM
Quote
It seems to me that for every instance of condemning past humanity of atrocity there an equal measure of recognizing progress, along with the conceit that because we are alive and they are dead that we are inherently superior in all ways and can glibly call ourselves enlightened as compared to their savagery. People of all ages have engaged in this kind of self-aggrandization.
This is an interesting point.  I would suggest that it's not self-aggrandizement but fact, that in many ways we are indeed 'better' than those who came before.

The flip side is we have a tendency to look favorably upon our (more recent) past if that past is a time when our success, influence and power was waxing instead of waning. 

It's human nature to want to be judged as the most moral and most just when we are in power and that any change from that power balance is seen as a decline of morals and justice that must be stopped.  As such it's no shock that prominent religions are intimately tied with government policies that seek to retain power.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2019, 11:41:59 AM
the peoples of those times weren't the simple monsters we'd make of them.

I think the bigger question is how the modern organization views and discusses those times. "We shouldn't have done that. We should have let everyone live in peace. We shouldn't have taken children away from their parents to teach them about the love of Christ. We were a bad influence, and ruined their lives. We should use this insight to examine our current choices, and avoid forcing our views on others."

We don't have to vilify the people of past times, we just shouldn't celebrate their bad actions.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on January 28, 2019, 01:38:31 PM
Quote
I'm continually amazed at how the right is terrified of sharia law, but constantly promote how Christianity should inform our politics.

Watched a interesting discussion over the weekend about the Christian Evangelical political movement leaning to the Far Right. Having lost the general debate on abortion and gender issues (the majority are pro choice and gender options or don't care) want to use government to force everyone to live by their values.

Just my opinion but I'm seeing less and less differences between Islam imposing sharia law and what the Far Right Christian conservatives want to see happen


Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2019, 02:02:09 PM
the peoples of those times weren't the simple monsters we'd make of them.

I think the bigger question is how the modern organization views and discusses those times. "We shouldn't have done that. We should have let everyone live in peace. We shouldn't have taken children away from their parents to teach them about the love of Christ. We were a bad influence, and ruined their lives. We should use this insight to examine our current choices, and avoid forcing our views on others."

We don't have to vilify the people of past times, we just shouldn't celebrate their bad actions.

That's not really what I'm talking about. You're still operating under the premise that they did bad things because they were morally/politically/intellectually inferior to us. Maybe D.W. is saying something like this, although I'm not quite sure. What I'm saying is that if you were literally there - for instance in a case where native peoples were exposed to disease, let's say, or where their education often took less than charitable forms - you might well realize that the devil is in the details. Looking bad with an evaluation of "they dominated people! they came and killed them with disease!" would surely be to ignore the historical context, what they thought they were trying to do, and how the results we now know really came about. No doubt some people back then meant very well, did the best they could with what they knew, and in fact behaved reasonably and even in an enlightened way; while others no doubt didn't care one way or the other, and their ignorance compounded with a cavalier sense of importance led to misadventures; and yet others were what we might call 'bad guys'. I don't think it's right to look back and decide that what they did was "obviously wrong". It might be to us, but in that time and place it might not have seemed so. Just like many things people now advocate for and defend vigorously may be looked upon in 400 years as being savage and ridiculous.

D.W.'s point may be that we are right - and so will be those who judge us - and such is progress. Perhaps so. The Trek believer in me hopes so. But that's not the same attitude as "but but crusades!" which often ends up being a catchall self-praise motif. Not really from anyone on these boards, mind you, but so often that it's sad. I guess my point is that there's a big difference between "if we now had the choice they had, we'd choose different", which is totally legit, and "they are guilty of wrongdoing!"
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on January 28, 2019, 02:28:41 PM
Quote
You're still operating under the premise that they did bad things because they were morally/politically/intellectually inferior to us. 
The alternative is that those who manipulate the masses have just found easier/more profitable/more palatable methods to control us and to generate wealth and power.  They don't need to be (or take the risk of being) openly "evil" to achieve those ends.  That, theory depresses the *censored* out of me however, so I go with, "WE are better people now than those who came before."

But it's always about those in power setting the tone.  Like computers, garbage in – garbage out.  We are extraordinarily susceptible to indoctrination, tribalism and/or partisanship.  If you grow up being taught that a group is not equal to you or less than you or somehow deserve their situation, or the less vile belief that YOU deserve what you have because you are divinely chosen / loved... well it sure does make it easier to be lumped into that "obviously wrong" group.  And you'd likely never know what a POS you were without a few generations or miles distance away from that society.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2019, 03:05:07 PM
Why is it hard to say they were inferior?

They were technologically inferior.
They were morally inferior.
They were philosophically inferior.
They were also super short.

All we can ask is to what degree it is their fault. But isn't that the same issue as looking at different cultures in our current world? That's like giving the Taliban a pass because in their culture it's okay to put someone to death for a variety of backward reasons. To them its a-ok.

It's not like other ideas were unknown in their time, the Quakers were out there.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2019, 03:47:29 PM
They were technologically inferior.

Certainly.

Quote
They were morally inferior.

While I do think there is such a thing as moral progress, I don't think it's nearly as obvious as many people do that we've made it since a few hundred years ago. What has changed is our means and capabilities, mass production, and vastly increased overall wealth due mostly to technology. Transplant that same environment to those people and I'm not certain that things would look that much different. It's counterfactual either way, but my general inclination is to believe that most of what makes us feel superior comes from social evolutions out of technological progress. I don't think the advances have significantly come from looking inwards and willing ourselves to be better; or at least, not in a vacuum. In some ways I would venture to guess that we're worse, insofar as individual self-delusion and entitlement go. And even those can probably be linked to technologies of various kinds.

Quote
They were philosophically inferior.

On what ground do you say this? And I wouldn't dispute it outright as negating this would require a powerful argument from me; one that I'm not prepared to try to make. But I wonder about it. Are you sure it's clear to you how powerful an argument it would take to confidently make your statement?

Quote
They were also super short.

We are definitely superior nutritionally.

Quote
All we can ask is to what degree it is their fault. But isn't that the same issue as looking at different cultures in our current world? That's like giving the Taliban a pass because in their culture it's okay to put someone to death for a variety of backward reasons. To them its a-ok.

It's not like other ideas were unknown in their time, the Quakers were out there.

I agree with this type of idea, that cultural relativism should be discarded in the case of evaluating how absolutely well or poorly a culture is behaving. However I think that's different from blame. You can say that a wolf needs to be shot without calling it bad; and you can discipline a misbehaving child without needing to also imply that it's "guilty" of something. And I would agree that if we're to believe that progress is a real thing then we should suppose that evolution happens culturally as well as physiologically. So while "primitive" might be a reasonable moniker to apply to a certain type of civilization, "guilty" doesn't seem applicable merely in cases where the level of advancement is the issue. A well-intentioned primitive tribe might develop a tribal leadership and warfare system that a modern American city-mentality would call brutal and hostile. However calling them evil might well be well off-base, when in fact that might be a decent solution for the problems such a tribe would face. So in a modern context when looking at the Taliban, are they "primitive" (well-intentioned but lacking advancement) or "guilty" (know exactly what they're doing and have established vicious control because they can). And maybe these can, at times, be tough to separate, and in way that's the discussion I'm alluding to. I do firmly believe that sometimes brutal tactics may, at any rate, seem like they're reasonable and necessary, whereas at other times I also firmly believe that certain people know exactly what they're doing when they use and abuse others, and they do it because they can get away with it. I don't see any objection to calling the latter type "guilty", and so again the issue comes down not to whether the culture we're inspecting is behaving how we would prefer (few do, I suppose), but whether given all the facts we might fairly surmise that they're doing the best they reasonably can. I believe that a lot of historical "atrocities" were probably much more reasonable in context then we'd like to believe.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2019, 05:21:38 PM



Quote
Quote
They were philosophically inferior.

On what ground do you say this? And I wouldn't dispute it outright as negating this would require a powerful argument from me; one that I'm not prepared to try to make. But I wonder about it. Are you sure it's clear to you how powerful an argument it would take to confidently make your statement?

I'm speaking about new philosophical frameworks, including existentialism, objectivism, and marxism. Especially how they should guide us to treat one another. Add epistemology advances that help us to define the basis on which our law should rest, rather than "the church or king said so". These allow us to better evaluate our actions independently, rather than just blindly accepting how things ought to be.

Your point on technology is well-taken. Did we evolve a system of rules about warfare because we gained a greater respect for civilian life, or just because new technology made it possible to do what we would have done in the first place if we had the ability?

I claim moral superiority, because fewer people are willing to accept factories working people to death in various ways. Fewer people are willing to accept civilian casualties. Fewer people are willing to accept torture.

There is a fair point to make about how quickly the veneer of civilization can fall when resources become scarce. Witness the behavior of Fyre Festival attendees who went into immediate Lord of the Flies mode. Do we agree that no one should go hungry only because we have plenty to spare?

I think this strengthens rather than weakens the need for organizations and society at large to continually reaffirm these superior values. Sometimes, that takes the form of condemning the Acts committed by our ancestors, without necessarily condemning the individuals involved.

In this case the request is to apologize for past action that hurt someone else. Even a total accident can warrant an apology. We don't need to vilify all past generations to do so.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 28, 2019, 07:13:23 PM
Your point on technology is well-taken. Did we evolve a system of rules about warfare because we gained a greater respect for civilian life, or just because new technology made it possible to do what we would have done in the first place if we had the ability?

It was a response to technical capabilities existing, and having been demonstrated, that could wreck havoc on populations at a scale never seem previously.

Quote
I claim moral superiority, because fewer people are willing to accept factories working people to death in various ways. Fewer people are willing to accept civilian casualties. Fewer people are willing to accept torture.

I call shenanigans on this one. The moment books on a given topic or other "education campaigns" started to happen making the wider public aware of many of these hazards was about the same time that efforts began to regulate and eliminate most of those risks.

An ignorant population that doesn't take action is a different matter than a knowing population that refuses to act. You can't take action to fix something you are unaware of.

Uncle Tom's Cabin did a LOT of work on slavery, I seem to recall a book written around 1900 which ultimately resulted in the USDA, as well as numerous other campaigns against child labor and various other things, all of which started getting traction after "the public" was made aware of what conditions were like.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2019, 07:31:02 PM
Not sure what your argument is. The existence and spread of those books is what raised our moral superiority. People were writing and speaking out against slavery since prior to the constitution. It increased during the abolitionist movement. I'm not saying the people were necessarily superior, I'm saying the society is superior. People understood slavery was wrong, otherwise the English would have had French slaves.

The spread of ideas is what shapes us into a superior society than the one that came before, just as the spread of ideas about science shape us into a superior society. Basic food safety wasn't just for the meat packers ("The Jungle"), but also later about individuals knowing safe food handling - which is ongoing.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 29, 2019, 01:48:12 AM
Uh, you need to research the history involving Indentured Servitude in the United States.

Our Colonial counterparts were just as heinous in their treatment of Indentured Europeans (English(!) and German alike) as they later were with the African ones.

The African slaves simply turned out to be cheaper given the prevailing trade routes of the time.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 29, 2019, 09:06:09 AM
Wasn't clear. I meant that a Londoner couldn't have a slave from Calais.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Pete at Home on January 29, 2019, 09:18:16 AM
There's nothing I love more than watching two people who both know more than me about a particular subject begin to throw their hard earned knowledge at each other.  I feel like Tevye (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7RmcdHrYuk). Forget the popcorn-- I'm taking notes. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 29, 2019, 11:02:34 AM
The indentured servitude was in fact a small progression. Instead of slaves just being the spoils of war (Romans), it became "people who deserved it" - debtors or criminals. Or entered into voluntarily in exchange for money or transport. It also had a time limit attached, as opposed to full slaves for life. They could indeed be mistreated, bought and sold. They could more or less be killed with impunity by their masters. So not a lot of difference, except that you generally couldn't be hit over the head and put into servitude (although I'm sure that did happen).

Future people will quite possibly look back on extracting work from prisoners as a form of indentured servitude, and they might rightly judge us for allowing it - even advocating for it as a way to reform miscreants.

That might be because society gains greater enlightenment and respect for the individual. But it might also be because technology makes prisoner work obsolete because of automation.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on January 29, 2019, 11:29:19 AM
The all volunteer military is a form of Indentured Servitude. They are government property until the contract ends.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Pete at Home on January 29, 2019, 01:13:29 PM
The all volunteer military is a form of Indentured Servitude. They are government property until the contract ends.

<speechless>

If I had known that someone would say something so brilliant today, then I would have made reading that part of my ten item bucket list.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on February 05, 2019, 09:05:07 AM
Oh, CNN.

Earth's magnetic north pole is hurtling toward Russia (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/health/north-pole-magnetic-moving-russia-scli-intl/index.html)

First off, 34 miles per year isn't exactly hurtling anywhere.

Now, their lead-in.

Quote
The north magnetic pole has been drifting so fast that it could be a problem for smartphone maps and navigation systems.

Four paragraphs later.

Quote
And while the model's primary user is the military, it has found its way into Google and Apple's civilian mapping systems. The difference will be minor for civilian purposes, however, and the changes are largely limited to latitudes above 55 degrees. "For most users below 55 degrees north, there is no real difference," Ciaran Beggan, a geophysicist at the British Geological Survey, which creates the map with the NOAA, told CNN.

And the wrap up.

Quote
There is nothing to worry about, Beggan said. "It is unusual behavior in historical terms, (by) geological scales it is not unusual," he said. "The magnetic field (changes) continuously, but it is partly because of its natural behavior," he added.

So a perfectly natural phenomenon of no particular importance is jacked up like a crisis.

Many of us do know that magnetic field is transient and can flip poles entirely. If CNN really wanted to worry people, they should have gone all the way with it. Planetary field strength dropping by 90% would be no joke.

Meanwhile:

NPR: As Magnetic North Pole Zooms Toward Siberia, Scientists Update World Magnetic Model

Quote
North is on the move, and that's a problem for your smartphone maps.

Washington Post had an interesting twist: The North Pole is moving, and the shutdown means we aren’t keeping up

Quote
And thanks to the political storm in Washington, scientists have been unable to post an emergency update of the World Magnetic Model, which cellphone GPS systems and military navigators use to orient themselves.

Just wow. Trump is responsible for failure to deal with a magnetic shift crisis that won't affect anyone inside the continental United States?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on February 05, 2019, 06:26:10 PM
Quote
So a perfectly natural phenomenon of no particular importance is jacked up like a crisis.

Yeah, weird.  I mean, that’s never happened before. Maybe you just don’t science, bro.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on February 24, 2019, 05:20:34 PM
Quote
MSNBC Malcolm Nance just claimed Trump sent secret attack orders to the Coast Guard terrorist
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on February 24, 2019, 05:28:00 PM
Quote
Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort appears to employ a pastry chef who frequently posts online about her belief in the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory.

Elizabeth Alfieri, a Florida pastry chef, has posted dozens of times on Instagram using QAnon hashtags and slogans, often using pictures taken at Mar-a-Lago itself.

Well, destroy her, I guess. And while we’re at it, let’s go through the internet history of every single person employed by Trump properties. Every single one. Doing good requires constant vigilance.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on February 26, 2019, 12:29:12 PM
Anything else on the Malcolm Nance quote?  If taken at face value, it SHOULD be something they would require some evidence / very credible sources for. 

You've surprised me before, so I'll stifle my "BS!" reaction.    ;D
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on February 26, 2019, 12:53:15 PM
nance, full context:

A clip of Trump's response to the incident.

Quote
TRUMP: I think it is a shame when a thing like that happens. I expressed that but I'm getting a very complete briefing in about two hours.

JACKSON: Do you think you bear any responsibility for your language.

TRUMP: No, I think my language is very nice. (end video)

Quote
Reid then discussed the Coast Guard officer's terrorist plot, and asked Malcolm Nance, "Can you draw a line between the rhetoric of this president and this kind of idea? This manifesto, idea. It is also tied to something separate that is white nationalists and wanting to have a white homeland?"

NANCE: His writings and what he was basing his ideology on was a globalist, white nationalist belief, that there should be these individual knights that arm themselves, like Timothy McVeigh, and take on the establishment of liberals themselves. That was typified by Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian who mass-murdered 77,000 people. One by setting off a car bomb in the capital of Norway, then he killed 69 children to "eliminate the next generation of liberal leadership from Norway." He believed he would go out and carry out a run and gun attack where he would kill the liberal leadership of the United States. Granted it might have been a fantasy in his head. The probability of him getting away with that is not good, but it's not zero. That's where the problem lies. He had a side ideology in his head that -- that we're hearing every day. We had the pipe bomber try to do the same thing in a more crude fashion. This was a very dangerous circumstance that we have to be on guard for, all of the time.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on February 26, 2019, 01:42:35 PM
No offense meant, but how the F' do you get from A to B then?    :o

In other words, Nance claimed no such thing.  Unless you cut and pasted the wrong, or incomplete excerpt. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on February 26, 2019, 04:27:05 PM
I'm just the messenger. Crunch will have to say if that's what he's referring to or not, but it seems pretty close and exactly the kind of cognitive fail that I'd expect.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on February 26, 2019, 07:05:33 PM
Sorry bout that TheDrake.  In my haste I thought that was Crunch replying to me.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on February 27, 2019, 07:58:04 AM
No offense meant, but how the F' do you get from A to B then?    :o

In other words, Nance claimed no such thing.  Unless you cut and pasted the wrong, or incomplete excerpt.

I don’t know what TheDrake is trying to do but he didn’t give you the correct context- not surprised.

You can watch the video. (https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1099715416178466816)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on February 27, 2019, 11:49:12 AM
Lulz. That's the exact same segment that I was quoting from, here it is in its entirety (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iAMqPef9cw).

Maybe Crunch should stop retweeting selections of video interviews along with the headline put on it by pro-Trump shills.

All Nance is saying is that Trump's constant rhetoric like (paraphrase) "horrible evil people, but I wouldn't kill them, but they are disgusting" - that just might encourage someone to take violent action against those people.

Crunch's twitter source:

Quote
John Michael Posobiec III (/pəˈsoʊbɪk/ pə-SOH-bik; born December 14, 1985)[1] is an American alt-right[2][3][4] internet troll[5][6][7] and conspiracy theorist[8] known primarily for his controversial and pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter. He has promoted fake news, including the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory that high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring.[9] He has been retweeted by Donald Trump.[10] As of 2018 he was working as a correspondent for One America News Network, a conservative cable news television channel.[11]

If you're following the pizzagate guy and quoting him, you've got cognitive problems.

Jack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Posobiec)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on February 27, 2019, 12:10:48 PM
I have not watched the clip, is what you are claiming Trump does any worse than the constant media assertions that his supporters are deplorable, racists that deserve what's coming their way?  That wearing a MAGA hat is a provocation that seemingly justifies a violent response?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on February 27, 2019, 12:55:27 PM
He's the President. Not Chris Cillizza. So yes, by definition, even equivalent language makes it worse on his part. Except it isn't equivalent. Most press characterizes the majority of Trump supporters as stupid more than evil. Then they talk about that evil streak that is hard to deny, but is a small minority.

I've never heard a member of the press suggest that somebody wearing any kind of hat deserves to be assaulted. They do pose the question as to what motivates the people committing such an assault.

It generally maxes out in this kind of language from CNN:

Quote
Still, there's an important element to the relative power represented by the Hebrew Israelites and the students from that mostly-white Catholic high school. Only one of them supports a man who has both spouted hate-filled language and has the power to roll back Obama-era oversight of law enforcement to curtail police brutality and unwanted shootings -- and that's the one those students chose to proudly align with.

You'll hear Trump use language like "I hate them." News pundits use language like "I hate what Trump is doing to this country."
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on February 27, 2019, 01:18:46 PM
You did not just say its worse coming from the President than from the media.  The platform is 1000 times bigger for the media.  I can't take your position seriously if you make that argument.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on February 27, 2019, 01:54:56 PM
Everything Trump says is propagated and multiplied by the media, so how can Trump possibly have a smaller reach?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on February 27, 2019, 03:36:43 PM
Read that back to yourself.  Everything the media magnifies, it also spends 20 times as much time spinning, and it gets to choose the exact things it magnifies and that which it ignores.

Trump is literally one content provider for the media.  Does a YouTube personality really have more reach than YouTube?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: yossarian22c on February 27, 2019, 04:09:29 PM
Trump is literally one content provider for the media.  Does a YouTube personality really have more reach than YouTube?

A YouTube provider isn't the President of the United States.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on February 27, 2019, 04:16:55 PM
Alright, so you guys are going to double down on the media having less influence than the President.  Make pithy tag lines and sound bites all you want, it's nonsensical on its face.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on February 27, 2019, 04:21:49 PM
I'm still hung up on how words from the president of the United States should not be held to the highest standard let alone a higher one than some attributed nebulously to "the media", let alone a particular participant in "the media". 

The *censored*ing job title allows one to moves economies (ours and others) and makes other countries change their national policies just by nature of trying to interpret what a holder of that office "meant" when they said something. 

I have no idea if you are morning the death of some idealized press with standards beyond reproach, or just defending this president giving him a free pass to spout out whatever pops into his reality tv star attention seeking brain.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on February 27, 2019, 04:24:01 PM
When people criticize him and say he's "not presidential" they see that as kinda a big deal.  It's less forgivable than most of his policy decisions.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on February 27, 2019, 04:28:01 PM
If you want to say the President is the single most influential person, go right ahead.  But the idea that Trump is somehow greater than the entire media is the kind of nonsense you'd expect to hear from Trump not rational people.

In any event, I find it troubling that you are persuaded by a media that's calling out Trump's violent rhetoric while simultaneously more than doubling down on violent rhetoric themselves.  It's almost like you believe that Republicans are not entitled to act the same way as Democrats.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on February 27, 2019, 06:04:00 PM
Can you give me an example of the press engaging in the kind of violent rhetoric that Trump uses?

Maybe I am blind to it, but I haven't seen it. I have certainly seen other people engaging in violent rhetoric toward Trump himself, and the media does tell people about it, like Kathy Griffin. I don't see them wallowing in it and nodding approvingly. Unlike Trump when he offers to pay the legal bills if one of his followers assaults a protester.

You see very few Democrat politicians calling Trump evil, or disgusting. There is a new crop like AOC who are much more Trump-like in their rhetoric. You're simply not going to hear that from Chuck Schumer, as far as I'm aware.

I will grant that in a philosophy major kind of thinking, I can't be certain that I don't have that impression because of manipulation of my perceptions. Maybe Chuck runs around all day long, talking about how people who wear Maga hats deserve to be taken out on a stretcher because they are so wretched. Maybe he's holding secret rallies that the media refuses to broadcast where he talks about how native born Americans are a bunch of criminals that deserve to be loathed. I have no easy way of disproving that theory, but it's not very plausible.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on February 28, 2019, 01:46:59 AM
I'm still hung up on how words from the president of the United States should not be held to the highest standard let alone a higher one than some attributed nebulously to "the media", let alone a particular participant in "the media". 

The *censored*ing job title allows one to moves economies (ours and others) and makes other countries change their national policies just by nature of trying to interpret what a holder of that office "meant" when they said something. 

I have no idea if you are morning the death of some idealized press with standards beyond reproach, or just defending this president giving him a free pass to spout out whatever pops into his reality tv star attention seeking brain.

If you see the dispute being about who is the most powerful, full stop, then perhaps it could be argued that the President is perhaps a contender with the media. I would highly doubt he's more powerful on the aggregate, although certainly insofar as he has particular powers the media doesn't have he can exert some kinds of direct influence they can't. But I don't think this is what Seriati meant. I understood his point to be that the media is more influential than the President in disseminating information. It's about information and what he public hears. The President by definition can't have more power to inform the people than the very avenues of informing. Now, if he had a direct connection to TV sets in private homes that would be one thing, but as what he says is typically run through the funhouse mirror of "reporting" there is always someone else conveying his message, or at least packaging or interpreting it.

And yeah, I would easily accept the argument that the country can survive a dishonest President, but probably cannot survive a dishonest press. Despite what much hysteria claimed, one main - even Trump - cannot descend America into fascism. But a press united to subvert honesty in favor of dollars? That literally can. I think it was Seriati who just recently expressed that a media either in the bag for private parties, or else expressing partisan political spin, is roughly speaking already a governmental propaganda arm. The difference we're seeing now is that the source of the propaganda doesn't have to be orchestrated centrally to be dangerous. I read a Reddit thread today whose topic was "most significant changes in the world", and one of the top comments was how in less developed countries fake news seems to be so rampant that the populace literally cannot tell the difference anymore between made up stories and real ones, and that this will increasingly cause real turmoil. Well it's happening in America too; the only difference is that America has such a powerful social infrastructure leading into it that it can sustain a great deal of bruising before buckling under.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on February 28, 2019, 09:13:22 AM
Quote
I understood his point to be that the media is more influential than the President in disseminating information. It's about information and what he public hears. The President by definition can't have more power to inform the people than the very avenues of informing. Now, if he had a direct connection to TV sets in private homes that would be one thing, but as what he says is typically run through the funhouse mirror of "reporting" there is always someone else conveying his message, or at least packaging or interpreting it.
I can understand that view.  I'm not sure I am wholly in agreement, but it makes a lot more sense now.

I tend to avoid commentary "news" as much as possible and still don't have a very hard time finding out what the president actually said.  Let alone THIS president and his interesting little quirk of tweeting like a jr. high kid. 

I suppose the White House could bombard my phone with transcripts of every public address via text message.  They've got the infrastructure for it now...   ::)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on February 28, 2019, 10:00:11 AM
To me, commentary "news", aka opinion, aka editorials are like cake - its nice once and a while, but you shouldn't have a steady diet of it.

I guess I could admit that I probably underestimate its impact because I don't expose myself to it very much - and I usually recognize what it is and can separate the wheat from the chaff.

It's like deceptive advertising. "4 out of 5 dentists prefer sugarless gum"

The casual listener is going to remember this as overwhelming support for Trident and not all sugarless gum. And forgetting the essential "for patients who chew gum" - how many dentists would prefer no gum at all, one wonders? It wouldn't work as well written in print - which is why I overwhelmingly prefer transcripts over watching video and prefer to read a variety of sources.

I can definitely see how someone on a steady diet of only one of MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News is going to be much more manipulated than someone who reads both National Review and Washington Post - as an example.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on March 17, 2019, 10:08:28 AM
Quote
Within minutes, his special report was the most popular story on Reuters.com here and was picked up by other news outlets. But the origin of the story goes back more than two years.

Members of the group, which calls itself Cult of the Dead Cow, protected O’Rourke’s secret for decades, reluctant to compromise the former Texas Congressman’s political career.

After more than a year of reporting, Menn persuaded O’Rourke to talk on the record. In an interview in late 2017, O’Rourke acknowledged that he was a member of the group, on the understanding that the information would not be made public until after his Senate race against Ted Cruz in November 2018.

So Reuters covered for Beto, protecting him during the senate race by burying information. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on March 17, 2019, 12:05:49 PM
What secret?  What's the "cult" about?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on March 17, 2019, 12:46:08 PM
cDc "cult of the dead cow" - is a "hackivist" group, from the time of BBSes (Bulletin Board Systems).    It wasn't a cult at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Dead_Cow

A 'hacktivist' is someone who does 'hacking' as a form of activism.  Beto did some writing for them "back in the day" when he was still a teenager.

I'm not sure why anyone think it is particularly relevant these days given he was a member prior to adulthood (15 years old or thereabouts).  At that time their 'goal' was to fight the actual cult of Scientology and chinese censorship.

WoZ and Steve Jobs did phone phreaking gear as young adults.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/02/the-definitive-story-of-steve-wozniak-steve-jobs-and-phone-phreaking/273331/


Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on March 17, 2019, 01:48:46 PM
He has confirmed his membership until he left for university. It’s likely he remained involved as an 18 year old adult. Your attempt to minimize this is largely deceptive.  If it’s no big deal, why hide it until after the election? Fan fiction about killing children maybe wouldn’t play well with voters, ya think?

During his time as a member, he has admitted to stealing phone service. At $1,500, that becomes a felony. Many/most members funded their efforts by other illegal means and Beto does not address that although it seems highly likely he was doing what all the other members were doing. He doesn’t deny it for fear it will finally come out and he’ll be caught in the lie.

So why is it relevant? It establishes that from a very young age Beto has repeatedly engaged in illegal behavior. From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Actually, we know why. It’s because he’s a Democrat. Kavanaugh drank beer as a teen and it was an outrage. Beto engages repeatedly in illegal behavior and no big deal.


Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 17, 2019, 07:14:08 PM
Nah, the media manipulating information to benefit members of the Democratic Party never happens, they're only caught at it every so many years after all.

It's those dastardly Republicans you need to be careful of.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on March 17, 2019, 10:27:13 PM
He has confirmed his membership until he left for university. It’s likely he remained involved as an 18 year old adult. Your attempt to minimize this is largely deceptive.  If it’s no big deal, why hide it until after the election?

No one "hid" it.  Peoples behavior as teenagers is largely immaterial to their behavior as adults unless they engage in a serious criminal activity such as rape.

Quote
During his time as a member, he has admitted to stealing phone service. At $1,500, that becomes a felony.

He was engaged in 'phone phreaking' almost certainly did so via devices similar to the boxes that WoZ and Jobs were selling.  (Of course technically inclined individuals could make their own with a few dollars spent at radioshack and a soldering iron.  Or you could use a whistle from a box of Captain Crunch cereal (which is how one 'hacker' derived his nickname of Captain Crunch).)

https://www.theverge.com/2013/2/5/3951964/what-todays-hackers-owe-phone-phreaks-phil-lapsley-exploding-the-phone

It was something that the majority of teens seriously interested in computers at the time did.  It was not treated as a felony by law enforcement at the time he was involved.

Quote
Many/most members funded their efforts by other illegal means  and Beto does not address that although it seems highly likely he was doing what all the other members were doing. He doesn’t deny it for fear it will finally come out and he’ll be caught in the lie.

I'm curious what your source is for this - you seem completely technically illiterate (about the level of my parents) and I'd be shocked if you had any knowledge of the 1980's "hacker" scene.  To my knowledge you are entirely incorrect.  What "funding" do you think was required?  To be involved required a computer and access to a BBS.  Most of those involved in the 'scene' had a family computer or were using there computer access at a university.

Also his involvement was writing and chatting there haven't been any reports that his involvement went beyond that.

Quote
So why is it relevant? It establishes that from a very young age Beto has repeatedly engaged in illegal behavior.

Most US children coming of age after the advent of computers have engaged repeatedly in illegal behavior involving computers (have you heard of Napster, LimeWire, BitTorrent?).  I didn't when I was in college, but I was an extreme anomaly - most teens and college students saw nothing wrong with 'file sharing' when they couldn't afford to buy music, movies, etc.  One of the most god fearing individuals I know had copied nearly every piece of software in existence for the mac back in the 1980's.

People - including police and universities - didn't really see computer crimes as crimes back then unless they were engaging in malicious behavior.

Quote
From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Actually, we know why. It’s because he’s a Democrat. Kavanaugh drank beer as a teen and it was an outrage. Beto engages repeatedly in illegal behavior and no big deal.

Mixtapes were illegal yet I'd bet you most Senators and Congressmen from the time the technology was available engaged in making them as teens and young adults.  It was simply something that was part of the culture of the time that children and young adults gave zero thought about and doesn't at all reflect their views with respect to laws, and no rational person would infer it would significantly influence their behavior 20, 30 or 40 years later.  Similarly the vast majority of teens and young adults have engaged in underage drinking and pot usage - again we don't think that it gives us insight into their behavior as an adult.

Regarding Kavanagauh - the only interest was to the extent that 1) he is alleged to have attempted rape 2) he appears to have engaged in purgery regarding his youthful behavior.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on March 17, 2019, 10:49:34 PM
And during the time that Beto was active you could install software that would do blue boxing, so you didn't even require soldering skills.

Quote
Blue boxing hit the mainstream media when an article by Ron Rosenbaum titled Secrets of the Little Blue Box was published in the October 1971 issue of Esquire magazine.[4] Suddenly, many more people wanted to get into the phone phreaking culture spawned by the blue box, and it furthered the fame of Captain Crunch. Two major amateur radio magazines ('73' and "CQ') published articles on the telephone system in the mid-1970s. CQ Magazine published details on phone phreaking, including the tone frequencies and several working blue box schematics in 1974.[citation needed] The June 1975 issue of '73' featured an article describing the rudiments of the long distance signaling network, how to construct red and blue boxes, and put them into operation.[7]

In November 1988, the CCITT (now known as ITU-T) published recommendation Q.140, which goes over Signaling System No. 5's international functions, once again giving away the 'secret' frequencies of the system. This caused a resurgence of blue boxing incidents with a new generation.[citation needed]

During the early 1990s, blue boxing became popular with the international warez scene, especially in Europe. Software was made to facilitate blue boxing using a computer to generate the signalling tones and play them into the phone. For the PC there were BlueBEEP, TLO, and others, and blue boxes for other platforms such as Amiga were available as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_box

Also regarding your amount for it to be a felony, - I seriously doubt that the laws are written such that independent events over a multiyear span would be cumulative.  So he almost certainly didn't engage in a felony with his phreaking.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 17, 2019, 11:35:13 PM
Mixtapes were illegal yet I'd bet you most Senators and Congressmen from the time the technology was available engaged in making them as teens and young adults.

Uh, if they ever were(and I could see it as possible), it was by a very technical reading of the law, and one that IIRC, didn't survive its encounter with the Court System, as it was protected under "fair use."

That said, if they were making mix tapes and giving them out to all of their buddies, that's another matter.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on March 18, 2019, 01:11:37 AM
I meant giving copies of mix tapes to friends, although it was quite common just to straight copy tapes as well.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 18, 2019, 09:56:38 AM
He has confirmed his membership until he left for university. It’s likely he remained involved as an 18 year old adult. Your attempt to minimize this is largely deceptive.  If it’s no big deal, why hide it until after the election? Fan fiction about killing children maybe wouldn’t play well with voters, ya think?

During his time as a member, he has admitted to stealing phone service. At $1,500, that becomes a felony. Many/most members funded their efforts by other illegal means and Beto does not address that although it seems highly likely he was doing what all the other members were doing. He doesn’t deny it for fear it will finally come out and he’ll be caught in the lie.

So why is it relevant? It establishes that from a very young age Beto has repeatedly engaged in illegal behavior. From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Actually, we know why. It’s because he’s a Democrat. Kavanaugh drank beer as a teen and it was an outrage. Beto engages repeatedly in illegal behavior and no big deal.

Librul Bad
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on March 18, 2019, 10:00:55 AM
It's weird that crunch equates drinking beer with assaulting people sexually...
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on March 18, 2019, 11:36:29 AM
It's weird that crunch equates drinking beer with assaulting people sexually...

It's even weirder that you make up things like that.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on March 18, 2019, 11:56:34 AM
He has confirmed his membership until he left for university. It’s likely he remained involved as an 18 year old adult. Your attempt to minimize this is largely deceptive.  If it’s no big deal, why hide it until after the election?

No one "hid" it.  Peoples behavior as teenagers is largely immaterial to their behavior as adults unless they engage in a serious criminal activity such as rape.
The Reuters reporter hid it. He had an agreement with Beto to do so. As for teenage behavior, you should review recent events to understand why it's important. Your rules, amigo.
Quote
During his time as a member, he has admitted to stealing phone service. At $1,500, that becomes a felony.

He was engaged in 'phone phreaking' almost certainly did so via devices similar to the boxes that WoZ and Jobs were selling.  (Of course technically inclined individuals could make their own with a few dollars spent at radioshack and a soldering iron.  Or you could use a whistle from a box of Captain Crunch cereal (which is how one 'hacker' derived his nickname of Captain Crunch).)

https://www.theverge.com/2013/2/5/3951964/what-todays-hackers-owe-phone-phreaks-phil-lapsley-exploding-the-phone

It was something that the majority of teens seriously interested in computers at the time did.  It was not treated as a felony by law enforcement at the time he was involved.
Going over $1,500 when stealing phone service was a felony. People were, in fact, arrested for it and charged.

Quote
Many/most members funded their efforts by other illegal means  and Beto does not address that although it seems highly likely he was doing what all the other members were doing. He doesn’t deny it for fear it will finally come out and he’ll be caught in the lie.

I'm curious what your source is for this - you seem completely technically illiterate (about the level of my parents) and I'd be shocked if you had any knowledge of the 1980's "hacker" scene.  To my knowledge you are entirely incorrect.  What "funding" do you think was required?  To be involved required a computer and access to a BBS.  Most of those involved in the 'scene' had a family computer or were using there computer access at a university.
The source is the Reuters reporter and a basic understanding of human nature - it's really not hard if you are reasonable and intelligent. What you don't know about the 1980's and 1990's hacker scene is that long distance was a service you had to pay for in that era. And, this may shock you, many times the BBS you accessed was in another city or even another state. You could easily run up thousands of dollars in long distance in a month if you were a heavy BBS user during that time. I was around for the 1980's and 1990's computer scene, got my computer engineering degree around that time. I have probably forgotten more about that hacking era than you'll ever know but, by all means kid, tell me what it was like.
Also his involvement was writing and chatting there haven't been any reports that his involvement went beyond that.

And stealing phone service.

Quote
So why is it relevant? It establishes that from a very young age Beto has repeatedly engaged in illegal behavior.
Most US children coming of age after the advent of computers have engaged repeatedly in illegal behavior involving computers (have you heard of Napster, LimeWire, BitTorrent?).  I didn't when I was in college, but I was an extreme anomaly - most teens and college students saw nothing wrong with 'file sharing' when they couldn't afford to buy music, movies, etc.  One of the most god fearing individuals I know had copied nearly every piece of software in existence for the mac back in the 1980's.
Oh, well, everyone was doing it. Why didn't you say that right up front? Everyone was doing it, that kind of makes it perfectly legal right? You really should stop with the logical fallacy thing.
People - including police and universities - didn't really see computer crimes as crimes back then unless they were engaging in malicious behavior.
Yes they did. People were even arrested and put on trial for it.
Quote
From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Actually, we know why. It’s because he’s a Democrat. Kavanaugh drank beer as a teen and it was an outrage. Beto engages repeatedly in illegal behavior and no big deal.

Mixtapes were illegal yet I'd bet you most Senators and Congressmen from the time the technology was available engaged in making them as teens and young adults.  It was simply something that was part of the culture of the time that children and young adults gave zero thought about and doesn't at all reflect their views with respect to laws, and no rational person would infer it would significantly influence their behavior 20, 30 or 40 years later.  Similarly the vast majority of teens and young adults have engaged in underage drinking and pot usage - again we don't think that it gives us insight into their behavior as an adult.
Beto's illegal behavior continued into his late 20's. Before you hang your hat on mixtapes, you might read up on something called "fair use".

Regarding Kavanagauh - the only interest was to the extent that 1) he is alleged to have attempted rape 2) he appears to have engaged in purgery regarding his youthful behavior.
When you supported a serial rapist for president, you lost the moral high ground on fake accusations of rape. "Appears" to have engaged in perjury, what a load.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on March 18, 2019, 12:01:51 PM
For those that think they know how it was,  ::)

Here's an article from 1987 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/05/28/long-distance-phone-fraud-dialing-without-dollars/0f45cfa5-91ff-4cc7-a584-117c22eb71ba/?utm_term=.746067d45193)
Quote
"It's what I would call a socially acceptable crime, unfortunately," said Jack Cox, a top Bell Atlantic Corp. security manager. "A lot of people know it's wrong, but it's something everyone does. It's sort of like going 80 miles an hour -- what's wrong with that? It's a crime, period. And if we catch you, you will be charged with a criminal offense."

Ernie Hyers, manager of security for toll fraud at C&P, says abusers are often young and away from home for the first time. The problem is especially noticeable on college campuses and military bases. Hyers believes, however, that young offenders can be educated about long-distance abuse.

"They are lonely, they don't have a lot of money, they want to talk to people they know, and they look at it as really not a crime," he said. C&P is active in the effort to stem abuse by showing videotapes of arrests and giving talks on the subject to junior high schools, high schools, colleges and military bases on behalf of AT&T.

The crime, which can result in up to 10 years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000, can be as simple as dialing a readily available local telephone number to reach MCI, Sprint or another phone company, then randomly punching in secret codes. After enough tries, the caller may luck out and find the right code needed to complete the call.

Please note, that despite claims to the contrary, the defense that "all the other kids are doing it" is not a real legal nor moral defense.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 18, 2019, 12:43:26 PM
Surprise. The guy from Ma Bell is quoted about how this is terrible and illegal. Might as well call the RIAA to ask them about fair use.

The point LR made was that it was widely accepted, for anyone that even knew it was going on.

From your own quote, the very first line acknowledges that it was socially acceptable - much like how people  are using Kodi today over VPN to illegally steal copyrighted content. I don't agree with it, and I'll say so, but I'm pretty much the only one and I won't stop being friends with people who do. It's not like finding out someone you know is engaging in identity theft or stealing packages off people's doorstep.

Most of the people who voted for Beto are unlikely to view his theft of services from AT&T to be a terrible moral failure like you do. The timing of the article was largely irrelevant. Unlike having an editor catch and kill a story, all Beto did on this was refuse to comment unless it was delayed until after the election.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on March 18, 2019, 12:44:46 PM
People were "outraged" because they believed it possible that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted somebody. Crunch believes that people were "outraged" because Kavanaugh drank beer, whereas nobody else was outraged over his beer drinking. Clearly, crunch equates drinking beer with sexual assaults.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: ScottF on March 18, 2019, 12:58:27 PM
I won't comment on you trying to read crunch's mind, but really? The beer drinking was hammered pillar to post. It literally came up 96 times during the hearings. Why would it be such a focus if there was no "outrage" associated with it? Unless the claim is that drinking beer as a youth somehow meant something different for Kavanaugh than drinking beer for, well any other young person. Or that something inherent in Kavanaugh meant it was worse than someone like Beto?

According to CNN: "Kavanaugh's drinking and the question of how excessive it was became a key line of questioning for Democrats on the Judiciary Committee last week and a possible credibility test for senators voting on his confirmation."

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/653414359/president-trump-brett-kavanaugh-and-beer

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/brett-kavanaugh-yale-drinking/index.html

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/3/17928698/brett-kavanaugh-blackout-drinking-alcohol


But yeah, I guess nobody was really focused on the drinking beer part.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 18, 2019, 01:36:55 PM
Focus is different from outrage. It was for two reasons. To show that his memories of the various parties would be unreliable OR to catch him lying about how drunk he got. It's a line of questioning designed with no safe haven. So he wound up walking an absurd tightrope with poor credibility and getting madder and madder about it - which resulted in a third option, deny it in such a way that you look like you came unglued.

The linked articles make that clear. People weren't outraged that he got loaded and puked on the back porch, or that he had a drinking problem. They were outraged that he may have been so drunk on a regular basis that he didn't understand consent and started groping women at parties.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on March 18, 2019, 01:43:13 PM
If I remember correctly to question on his drinking along with other activities/games hinted at in Kavanaugh's calendar pointed to a person capable of sexual assault and or blacking out the memory of such a assault.
It wasn't the issue of the drinking by itself.
That said his reaction to the question of drinking was odd and funny in a sad way which couldn't help attract media attention.
There was no way he wasn't going to get the nomination and the only thing that almost got him was his reactions to the questions.

That said the DNC made a huge mistake going after him for something they were never going to be able to prove. Just added fuel to the fire and undermined their own positions as Crunch enjoys arguing.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 18, 2019, 02:09:40 PM
The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd.  Drinking was a huge focus of the hearings.  If you don't remember, go back and read the transcripts.  Almost every line of questioning related to his yearbook was about drinking, and I can't even count how many times they asked him about it.

It was especially absurd because at the time the drinking age for beer would have been 18 in the District and either 18 or 19 in most of the surrounding states, and it would barely have been enforced against anyone drinking in high school.  It was only an issue with a backwards eye from the rigid 21+ world of today.

Again though, this is a total farce.   LR's claims that it's only important felonies that matter is absurd on its face.  It's literally only felonies (in K's case, misdemeanors that have no evidence or credible witnesses) that can be tacked to a Republican that are important, it doesn't matter what's tacked to a Dem.  Do you really think Kavanaugh would be on the SC if he'd done what Beto did and tried to flee the scene from a DUI?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 18, 2019, 02:17:31 PM
As far as misleading or false claims by the media.  CNN and much of the rest of the leftist tv propaganda spent the weekend trying to claim Trump was responsible for the NZ shootings.  And spared a little bit of time to claim that Trump controls Fox News (by publicaly tweeting at it).  This latter part was especially rich coming from CNN that has a history of coordinating stories with the DNC and even taking talking points from their proxies.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 18, 2019, 03:20:00 PM
Not responsible, but part of the problem. Otherwise, why is the guy going to specifically reference him and his anti-Muslim rhetoric and policy? He basically came out with an all-lives-matter kind of response. Pence too. Neither one could even bring themselves to use the word Muslim, instead using generics of "people of faith".

Would this shooter have gone off if Hillary were President? Yes. But that doesn't change how his remarks provide room for people to wonder how he really feels about Muslims.

It is legitimate to report about both of those aspects of the shooting.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on March 18, 2019, 03:39:12 PM
Quote
CNN and much of the rest of the leftist tv propaganda spent the weekend trying to claim Trump was responsible for the NZ shootings

Why is everything so either or.  It's this type of hyperbole that makes real dialog so difficult. Everyone would be better off if they stopped watching Fox, CNN and talk radio in general

Trump is not responsible for the NZ shootings
Trumps rhetoric style and statements or lack of statement with regards to immigration, white supremacy, Islamophobia is open to a valid debate.

Quote
The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd
I agree and your right about the focus on the drinking was excessive however I think your wrong when you say the drinking was what those questioning him cared about
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on March 18, 2019, 03:43:35 PM
Quote
CNN and much of the rest of the leftist tv propaganda spent the weekend trying to claim Trump was responsible for the NZ shootings

Why is everything so either or.  It's this type of hyperbole that makes real dialog so difficult. Everyone would be better off if they stopped watching Fox, CNN and talk radio in general

Trump is not responsible for the NZ shootings
Trumps rhetoric style and statements or lack of statement with regards to immigration, white supremacy, Islamophobia is open to a valid debate.

Quote
The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd
I agree and your right about the focus on the drinking was excessive however I think your wrong when you say the drinking was what those questioning were trying to get to. In that regard your doing the retcon (as mush as anyone anyway)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 18, 2019, 03:56:56 PM
Not responsible, but part of the problem. Otherwise, why is the guy going to specifically reference him and his anti-Muslim rhetoric and policy?

As I understand it, CNN and other propagandists love to point out the Trump reference, but specific don't go on to the next few sentences where he says he doesn't support Trump's policies.

Why then do you think he supported Trump's policies?

Quote
He basically came out with an all-lives-matter kind of response. Pence too. Neither one could even bring themselves to use the word Muslim, instead using generics of "people of faith".

He specifically condemned the attack in New Zealand and said we stand with them.  Keep in mind, this isn't a blank slate, we had an attack on a Jewish Congregation this year and a black Christian two years back.  Why is condemning attacking people at their religious celebrations off kilter to you?

Quote
Would this shooter have gone off if Hillary were President? Yes. But that doesn't change how his remarks provide room for people to wonder how he really feels about Muslims.

It is legitimate to report about both of those aspects of the shooting.

It's not legitimate.  It's just like blaming Chelsea Clinton for it.  The propagandists are hard selling confusion and conflation of responsibility but it's a false story.  We're responsible for our own actions. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 18, 2019, 04:01:45 PM
Trumps rhetoric style and statements or lack of statement with regards to immigration, white supremacy, Islamophobia is open to a valid debate.

They are?  Why?

What is Islamophobia to you that you think Trump should have done more to confront it?  Where is it?  What's the evidence?

White supremacy is a nonsense issue.  It's literally the left trying to force the issue onto the Administration.  Point to the policies that are "white supremicist"  seriously, point to the policies.  The entire point of the propaganda on this is to tar without evidence.  Do you have any evidence?

Quote
Quote
The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd
I agree and your right about the focus on the drinking was excessive however I think your wrong when you say the drinking was what those questioning him cared about

I never said it was.  What they cared about was preventing a Justice that believes in enforcing the law from getting to the Supreme Court.  They'd gotten used to using the unelected dictators to force policies on the public when they can't win at the ballot box.  In that game there is no consolation prize.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on March 18, 2019, 04:36:38 PM
Quote
The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd.  Drinking was a huge focus of the hearings. 
Speaking of Retcon.... The focus on Kavanagh lying about drinking is not the same as caring about his drinking. Like it or not, excessive drinking is almost a right of passage in the USA.

Potentially perjuring oneself denying one's drinking in order to avoid opening oneself up further to accusations of sexual assaults is not.

Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 18, 2019, 04:41:27 PM
He specifically condemned the attack in New Zealand and said we stand with them.  Keep in mind, this isn't a blank slate, we had an attack on a Jewish Congregation this year and a black Christian two years back.  Why is condemning attacking people at their religious celebrations off kilter to you?

When the Synagogue was attacked, he condemned anti-Semitism. It seems significant to me that he's not calling out Islamophobia, or saying anything positive about supporting the Muslim community. Remember how agitated certain news outlets would get whenever a politician wouldn't use the full phrase "radical Islamic terrorism"? Congruent situation.

Quote
It's not legitimate.  It's just like blaming Chelsea Clinton for it.  The propagandists are hard selling confusion and conflation of responsibility but it's a false story.  We're responsible for our own actions.

Maybe if Chelsea Clinton were constantly beating the drum of the danger of Islam. Maybe if she called for total ban on Muslim travel. Maybe if she supported someone who suggested that wearing a hijab is in conflict with the Constitution. Maybe if she were hard-pressed to ever say anything good about a Muslim who is not a Saudi Prince.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on March 18, 2019, 04:53:22 PM
Quote
Trumps rhetoric style and statements or lack of statement with regards to immigration, white supremacy, Islamophobia is open to a valid debate.

Quote
They are?  Why?

What is Islamophobia to you that you think Trump should have done more to confront it?  Where is it?  What's the evidence?

White supremacy is a nonsense issue.  It's literally the left trying to force the issue onto the Administration.  Point to the policies that are "white supremicist"  seriously, point to the policies.  The entire point of the propaganda on this is to tar without evidence.  Do you have any evidence?

As TheDrake pointed out what Trump chooses to tweet about and not tweet about is a valid topic to debate. Debating the content of his tweets does not make Trump a 'white supremacist'
That's the problem, we can't seem to debate a issue without it taking a extreme position.

Trump could very easily put any question about his stance on the issue if it served his purpose - it doesn't. Its better for him politically to leave his views questionable (not questionable as in right or wrong but as in not clear) As long as he keeps these door open he gets to claim to be the victim of 'Orange man bad' which keeps his opponents off balance. Its a excellent strategy if IMO a immoral one.

Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on March 18, 2019, 06:30:54 PM
Seriati said:
Quote
As I understand it, CNN and other propagandists love to point out the Trump reference, but specific don't go on to the next few sentences where he says he doesn't support Trump's policies.

Why then do you think he supported Trump's policies?

Which policies regarding Muslims did the killer not support?  I'm sure he was all for the Muslim ban (as Trump called it).  What wasn't he for?

Crunch said:
Quote
During his time as a member, he has admitted to stealing phone service. At $1,500, that becomes a felony.

So what do you think should be the punishment for a politician that allegedly committed a felony (I note that you have cited no proof that he actually did it) when he was a teenager?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on March 19, 2019, 12:42:28 AM
I won't comment on you trying to read crunch's mind, but really? The beer drinking was hammered pillar to post. It literally came up 96 times during the hearings. Why would it be such a focus if there was no "outrage" associated with it?

Because he had perjured himself.  The questions were to establish his perjury.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on March 19, 2019, 01:32:07 AM
The Reuters reporter hid it. He had an agreement with Beto to do so.

No hiding took place, he wanted a comment from Beto and Beto said he wouldn't provide a comment till a later date, which delayed the story.

Quote
As for teenage behavior, you should review recent events to understand why it's important. Your rules, amigo.

Rape and attempted rape are extremely serious behaviors.  Also it isn't "my rules" - it is the general view of society as a whole.

Quote
Going over $1,500 when stealing phone service was a felony. People were, in fact, arrested for it and charged.

There is no evidence that he went over 1,500$.  Also it was generally only charged against organized crime and as part of other more serious charges.

Quote
The source is the Reuters reporter and a basic understanding of human nature

Wrong on both counts, the Reuters article didn't at all say what you seem to think it said.

Quote
What you don't know about the 1980's and 1990's hacker scene is that long distance was a service you had to pay for in that era.

I did in fact know that.

Quote
And, this may shock you, many times the BBS you accessed was in another city or even another state.

Not shocked or even unaware.  However cDc was local for Beto so his activity likely didn't involve a lot of long distance.

Quote
I was around for the 1980's and 1990's computer scene, got my computer engineering degree around that time. I have probably forgotten more about that hacking era than you'll ever know but, by all means kid, tell me what it was like.

And yet you seemed blissfully unaware of phreaking.  So perhaps you have indeed forgotten more about that hacking era, but apparently you seem to have forgotten rather nearly everything.

Quote
Quote
Also his involvement was writing and chatting there haven't been any reports that his involvement went beyond that.

And stealing phone service.

Yep, it was entirely wrong of him to do.  So is distributing mix tapes.  Also "fair use" is an affirmative defense - it has to be litigated each time and only then can you assert fair use and determined non-infringing.

Quote
Oh, well, everyone was doing it. Why didn't you say that right up front? Everyone was doing it, that kind of makes it perfectly legal right? You really should stop with the logical fallacy thing.

I really thought you were smart enough to understand the reasoning, sorry for over estimating you.  I didn't assert it was legal.  I was pointing out that we as a society have legislated certain behaviors to be illegal, but certain subsets of illegal behavior, when engaged in by youths and young adults are fairly normative - and thus not indicative of a lack of morals latter in life.

Generally these behaviors are crimes that we considered 'victimless' (drinking, experimenting with drugs) or where the victim is a corporation and the crime doesn't deprive the corporation of goods, but rather denies them profits on goods or services with little or no marginal cost (such as copyright violation, or service violations such as sharing logins to netflix) - and where the actual losses are largely imaginary or grossly exaggerated.

Quote
From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Has anyone you known ever consumed alcohol underage (perhaps even yourself?)?  Have all of those individuals turned out to be hardened criminals?  If not, can you perhaps see the flaw in your reasoning?  (Ok, that was a rhetorical question - you are incapable of seeing any flaws in your reasoning - but I think the flaw is obvious to other readers).


Quote
Actually, we know why. It’s because he’s a Democrat. Kavanaugh drank beer as a teen and it was an outrage. Beto engages repeatedly in illegal behavior and no big deal.

Again, reasoning skills of a two year old.  Kavanaugh was credibly accused of attempted rape, and in my opinion obviously perjured himself regarding his drinking as a teen and young adult.  The concern was over the credible accusation of attempted rape and his current and past purjury, the alcohol was what he was perjuring himself over.

Quote
Beto's illegal behavior continued into his late 20's.

Source?  I don't think there is any source anywhere that claims that.

Quote
Before you hang your hat on mixtapes, you might read up on something called "fair use".

I'm familiar with fair use.  I'm also aware that the vast majority of mix tapes (especially when distributed to friends) are not in fact fair use.

Quote
When you supported a serial rapist for president, you lost the moral high ground on fake accusations of rape.

I didn't support Trump for President (oh that isn't who you meant by serial rapist?).  If you meant Clinton, I didn't support him for President either although there were no such accusations by his alleged victims against him at the time he was running.  Also there is no evidence Clinton is a serial rapist.  There is one plausible accusation with serious credibility issues that he is a rapist.  I can perfectly understand those who find it credible, but also find it perfectly understandable for those who don't find it credible - it is an issue about which reasonable people can legitimately disagree on the interpretation of the evidence in terms of finding it credible.

Quote
"Appears" to have engaged in perjury, what a load.

Yes 'appears' is a dramatic understatement, Kavanaugh by any reasonable standard has perjured himself in my opinion, but I have a tendency to use hedge words when referring to behavior regarding criminal conduct.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on March 19, 2019, 02:00:02 AM
Quote
No hiding took place, he wanted a comment from Beto and Beto said he wouldn't provide a comment till a later date, which delayed the story.

Correction on my behalf.  What actually happened is that he didn't even know it was Beto.  The members of the cDc wouldn't inform him of who it was until he agreed to the condition (they only told the reporter - who was writing a book about cDc, that a current politician was a former member).  He had only vague information prior to that and didn't know it was Beto.  So he traded for a delay of a story that wouldn't be about Beto (essentially a non-story since without knowing who the politician was it was pointless), in exchange for learning it was Beto, but delaying the story.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 19, 2019, 05:08:56 AM
I won't comment on you trying to read crunch's mind, but really? The beer drinking was hammered pillar to post. It literally came up 96 times during the hearings. Why would it be such a focus if there was no "outrage" associated with it?

Because he had perjured himself.  The questions were to establish his perjury.

In regards to what? That he didn't get drunk enough to pass out, or that he didn't get drunk enough to "blackout" and have no recall of activities he undertook while still conscious?

I think when it comes to a perjury claim, Bill Clinton covered that one fairly well: "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' (or 'blackout') is."

My understanding of "blackout drunk" always was that the person may have been conscious at the time, but he(or she) was so drunk at that point that they wouldn't remember anything that happened after a certain point in the night. Somebody who drank enough to pass out, "passed out" rather than "blacked out." Of course, you can pass out AND black out, but you also can "pass out" without "blacking out" as a drunk.

Unless I'm missing something, as my own recollection of those hearings seemed to be attempts to catch him in a trap regarding his getting drunk enough that he could have had a memory lapse(black out) due to alcohol, and thus explain "no recollection" of the event he was accused of. But then, how you're going to prove perjury on such a matter without some serious proof is beyond me. As you'd have to establish he knowingly and deliberately lied.

Which is a hard claim to prove if he has no memory of such an event(because he blacked out, and somehow never became aware of "the memory hole" after the fact), and nobody else remembers it either. Except evidently this one person, who can't seem to find anyone else who remembers a scenario resembling the story she gave..
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 19, 2019, 06:33:46 AM
You don't have to prove perjury to believe someone is lying. If someone responded like K did in a job interview they wouldn't get hired, which was the context. Just like no one can prove who was in the Klan outfit, but if it is on your yearbook page.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2019, 09:44:24 AM
Quote
The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd.  Drinking was a huge focus of the hearings. 
Speaking of Retcon.... The focus on Kavanagh lying about drinking is not the same as caring about his drinking. Like it or not, excessive drinking is almost a right of passage in the USA.

Potentially perjuring oneself denying one's drinking in order to avoid opening oneself up further to accusations of sexual assaults is not.

"Potentially"?  Do you have any evidence that Kavanaugh perjured himself about drinking, or is this once again wishful thinking and implication?  Guilt by implication is wrong.

If I said we shouldn't listen to you because you are potentially a criminal rapist would that mean you now bear the stink of that "allegation"?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 19, 2019, 09:55:05 AM
Quote
If I said we shouldn't listen to you because you are potentially a criminal rapist would that mean you now bear the stink of that "allegation"?

Would you hire someone if you heard rumors that they had done something unethical or illegal, and they broke down when you asked them about it during an interview? Or would you move on to another candidate?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2019, 10:01:15 AM
It seems significant to me that he's not calling out Islamophobia, or saying anything positive about supporting the Muslim community. Remember how agitated certain news outlets would get whenever a politician wouldn't use the full phrase "radical Islamic terrorism"? Congruent situation.

He's said plenty positive about the community.  He's made it clear on multiple occasions that this is not about religion it's about radical elements in religion.  Here's just one quote, "This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects or different civilizations, this is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people, all in the name of religion."

You only hear what you want on this topic (and the media and search algorythms help to ensure it's only what you/they want.  Why wouldn't he or any one else use "radical Islamic terrorism" it's still responsible for the majority of terror in the world. 

I can't speak to the overall quality of this, but it is interesting in giving a sense of the scale here.   https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism (https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism)  It does one glaring omission, it excludes state sponsored terrorism, which depending on the the definition either heavily skews the results to be even more about radical Islam, or pretty much counts the US as on of the big sponsors.

Why are you anti-science?  Radical Islam in fact has a terrorism problem.  Where it's active it creates new attacks and prompts reprisals. 

That has nothing to do with this attack.  This rightfully condemned.  But the idea that because of this attack we should ignore reality makes zero sense.

Quote
Quote
It's not legitimate.  It's just like blaming Chelsea Clinton for it.  The propagandists are hard selling confusion and conflation of responsibility but it's a false story.  We're responsible for our own actions.

Maybe if Chelsea Clinton were constantly beating the drum of the danger of Islam.

You do know that was not hypothetical.  She was shouted at by people blaming her, because any statement, no matter how inocuos, is considered somehow causation.  What ever happened to understanding of correlation? 

Trump criticizing a real factual state, that radical Islam is responsible for, or directly involved in a majority of the world's terrorism is somehow "causing" people to attack Muslims?

Quote
Maybe if she were hard-pressed to ever say anything good about a Muslim who is not a Saudi Prince.

Again, you're only choosing what you want to see.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 19, 2019, 10:02:43 AM
Anyway, we've already explored that in depth, didn't mean to rehash it. The more appropriate question here is whether it was a legitimate news topic. It certainly was, even if only to highlight the degree of desperation or nefariousness of the Democrats. Was it fair to have a discussion about whether K was lying? It certainly seemed that commentators from the right thought it was fair enough to assume Ford a liar with equally little proof that she was lying.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2019, 10:07:06 AM
Quote
If I said we shouldn't listen to you because you are potentially a criminal rapist would that mean you now bear the stink of that "allegation"?

Would you hire someone if you heard rumors that they had done something unethical or illegal, and they broke down when you asked them about it during an interview? Or would you move on to another candidate?

Are you saying, you wouldn't hire someone based on a 30 year old rumor that they denied and no one put any proof on, after hearing multiple testimonials from everyone who knows the person?  Where they had sterling job recommendations from every employer and a history of promoting diversity that flew directly in the face of the rumor?

In any event, I've approved the hiring of felons before (you know people that were actually convicted of crimes) because they deserve a second chance.

And I guaranty you have a friend out there that's been more sexually aggressive than Kavanaugh was accused of being.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 19, 2019, 10:10:43 AM
Quote
Why are you anti-science?  Radical Islam in fact has a terrorism problem.  Where it's active it creates new attacks and prompts reprisals. 

Are you anti-science? The world, in fact, has an Islamophobia problem as well. Where it's active it creates new attacks and prompts reprisals.

I'm not saying anyone can't say "radical Islamic terrorism" and have a very legitimate point. There's certainly nothing inherently wrong with that phrase, and it is fairly limited as opposed to "Islamic terrorism" or "the Muslim threat" which should not be condoned.

I'm talking about the very big deal that was made of people who condemned attacks by Muslims while omitting their religion.

I see it equally relevant to ask why Trump doesn't reach out to Muslim groups and express sympathy without having to dilute them and combine them with other groups. The conclusion to that discussion can be fairly debated, but it is news and there's nothing misleading about exploring the question.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2019, 10:15:02 AM
As TheDrake pointed out what Trump chooses to tweet about and not tweet about is a valid topic to debate.

Agreed.  What I don't find valid is CNN and the rest of the propagandists immediately running with the "it's not enough" when Trump tweets support for the people of NZ.  The fact is that nothing ever would be enough to them because it doesn't fit their desired story.

When he sends out positive messages they never report them, or they let them die. 

This is the epitome of fake news.  There's no world where Obama sends out the same message and the media puts up one second of criticism.  It's a lie that "Trump is a special case" because of his past actions.

Quote
Debating the content of his tweets does not make Trump a 'white supremacist'
That's the problem, we can't seem to debate a issue without it taking a extreme position.

I didn't start there.  But I done with not calling out the left when they lie and manipulate.  I am done playing the game where the left pretends to a moral high ground when they are the most corrupt people in the game.

Quote
Trump could very easily put any question about his stance on the issue if it served his purpose - it doesn't.

No he couldn't.  There is no phrase on Earth that could "put it to rest."  Even if he did a day long seminar of apology, the media would run with a story of how it was all a big lie and cover for his true message of hate.  They'd find some random one toothed racist in the middle of no where to say he knows the President is just lying to provide cover and it'd still be the story.  Except the media would now call him a liar on top of it.

Quote
Its better for him politically to leave his views questionable (not questionable as in right or wrong but as in not clear)

His views are not unclear.  He condemns radicalism by everyone.  He's flat out said it's not about religion.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 19, 2019, 10:15:48 AM
In any event, I've approved the hiring of felons before (you know people that were actually convicted of crimes) because they deserve a second chance.

And I guaranty you have a friend out there that's been more sexually aggressive than Kavanaugh was accused of being.

You missed the whole second half of my proposition. The way he reacted. Would I hire a formerly violent felon without having a discussion about it? No. If they got aggressive and belligerent when I asked, would that increase my concern? If they got evasive, might I start to wonder if they had really been rehabilitated.

I have a number of social acquaintances that I would disqualify from employment based on racial attitudes, misogyny, or inappropriate behavior - either past or present, and I'm not hiring a judge to a lifetime appointment.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 19, 2019, 10:38:32 AM
Quote
CNN and much of the rest of the leftist tv propaganda spent the weekend trying to claim Trump was responsible for the NZ shootings

Backing up for a minute, I'll make no apologies or defense for CNN. Their talking heads have achieved Breitbart levels of partisanship.

As for the other punditry, I can't really say. I don't normally watch multiple TV news sources. I generally go by what their websites post, because if I watched it on TV my brains would turn to mush and run out my ears.

Maybe that's part of our disconnect. I have no way of knowing if they schedule 8 guests on 8 shows that all disparage Trump and assume the worst of him. Just like I don't really know if Fox has 4 hosts that all disparage the people disparaging Trump.

To me, "the media" is an amalgam of BBC, WaPo, CNN, Breitbart, and a blend of others found ad hoc through google or cross reference. I don't really know if "Is Trump Racist?" is scrolling by 7 times per minute at the bottom of the screen. As rightleft posted earlier, people would be much better off not exposing themselves to those sources on a regular bases - especially Trump himself.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on March 19, 2019, 10:56:40 AM
To clarify I don't view CNN as representative of most people I know on the left, just as Fox is not Representative of most people on the right. I also don't view the majority of their programming as news. Opinion, speculation and punditry is not news and my worry is that two many people can't tell the difference anymore. Its unfortunate that any concerns we might like to debate are warped by that.

I'd like to address why I think Trump could do a better job at 'clear up' his message and why I think political it serves him better if he doesn't but I have to get to work.  I think CNN "reporting" works in Trump's favor

Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2019, 11:03:41 AM
The Reuters reporter hid it. He had an agreement with Beto to do so.

No hiding took place, he wanted a comment from Beto and Beto said he wouldn't provide a comment till a later date, which delayed the story.

So the story goes.  If Fox had an interview with someone that proves Russian collusion and is sitting on it so the author can write a book after the Trump Presidency is over do you feel the same way?

The timing on the hold and the release is nonsense.  It was held to protect the Senate race, and it's being released now so it can be old news when the voting starts.  It's blatant manipulation.

Quote
Quote
As for teenage behavior, you should review recent events to understand why it's important. Your rules, amigo.

Rape and attempted rape are extremely serious behaviors.  Also it isn't "my rules" - it is the general view of society as a whole.

I didn't think Beto was accused of Rape, where did you get that?

Once again, I'm going to assume you are implying Kavanaugh.  The elements alleged were for groping, not rape or attempted rape.  Which makes this assertion a bit of lie.

Quote
Not shocked or even unaware.  However cDc was local for Beto so his activity likely didn't involve a lot of long distance.

I'm just curious, where are you going with this?  Are you going to 'splain anything and everything he does cause he's the man?  In this world, if he were a Republican anyone of the following would be a disqualifier:  drunk driving, participation in hacking group, writing short fiction about killing kids (I mean my goodness, Beto shouldn't be allowed to visit a school on the see something say something modern standard).

Meanwhile, Romney was attacked for an unproven assertion of high school bullyling, and you won't let anything go on Kavanaugh even though there's no proof and most every assertion was absurd. 

On the whole hacker thing, I'm assuming this was between 83 and 95, that's exactly the time window (post War Games) when enforcement and legal actively ramped up consistently every year.  And yes, the feds did take it seriously, though back then they were almost completely focused on government systems.

Quote
Yep, it was entirely wrong of him to do.  So is distributing mix tapes.  Also "fair use" is an affirmative defense - it has to be litigated each time and only then can you assert fair use and determined non-infringing.

I'm not aware of any serious litigation related to personal use of mixtapes.  Nor of any non-commercial use.   Selling a mixtape, sure.  I'm not even aware of anything related to using them at a public venue (it's whether you have the right to use the songs at all, not whether you copied them onto a single tape that mattered).  I mean heck, virtually every tape player in the 80s had 2 tape decks specifically to copy songs.

Quote
Quote
From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Has anyone you known ever consumed alcohol underage (perhaps even yourself?)?

So you have no problem moving groping to rape, and no problem moving drunk driving to underage consumption (even though he was 26 at the time of the DWI)?  I mean if I had to guess, Beto acted like an entitled white kid, because that's exactly what he was. 

Quote
Have all of those individuals turned out to be hardened criminals?  If not, can you perhaps see the flaw in your reasoning?  (Ok, that was a rhetorical question - you are incapable of seeing any flaws in your reasoning - but I think the flaw is obvious to other readers).

Can you see your own flaw?

Quote
Again, reasoning skills of a two year old.  Kavanaugh was credibly accused of attempted rape, and in my opinion obviously perjured himself regarding his drinking as a teen and young adult.

Reasoning skills?  You're kidding right?

Credible, per Merriam Webster, "offering reasonable grounds for being believed."  Kavanaugh was accused, period.  The only thing you found credible was what?  That Ford spoke well?  She had no details - at all, her friend who she said was at the party said she believed her, but personally she had never been a party with Kavanaugh and didn't know him.  She never told anyone any details for decades.  She didn't remember, the day, the year or any details about how she got there or left.  That is not credible.

Second, what the elements of rape and attempted rape?  The accusation was of groping, there are no elements present that even plausible move it to rape or attempted rape.  That's just a libel you won't let go. 

There's no applicable statute of limitations on rape.  If it were credible, MD could pursue the charges with or without Ford.  Yet MD has not done so, and Ford has not filed charges.  Why not?

You've laid out the perjury nonsense before and it's a big nothing burger.  You can go to his actual quotes and see what you'd have to prove and you've never shown that anyone can demonstrate that what he said was untrue. 

In fact, its very certain that he didn't perjure himself.  He answered more interrogotaries than any SC before, in fact I think he answered more than all combined. Turned over more documents than anyone before, and the incredible partisan Democratic Senators couldn't find the evidence of perjury.  I'm guessing you don't have it either, you've just convinced yourself without evidence.


Quote
Quote
Beto's illegal behavior continued into his late 20's.

Source?  I don't think there is any source anywhere that claims that.

He was borne in 72, his burglary arrest (granted seems minor) was in 95 and his DWI was in 98.  That'd be when he was 23 and 26 respectively.  Did you look for a source, or are you limiting your call to the hacking?

Quote
I didn't support Trump for President (oh that isn't who you meant by serial rapist?).

Again, you make up an allegation and act like it's real.  Do you have some evidence that Trump is a rapist, let alone a serial rapist?  I think there's some people in Congress that'd be interested.

LR why do you keep saying things you have to know are not true?

Quote
If you meant Clinton, I didn't support him for President either although there were no such accusations by his alleged victims against him at the time he was running.

There were rumors of Broaddrick's story before he was first elected in 1992.  You can go to her Wiki and see that she was talking to people before then and that it even went to the NYT's and LA Times in 1992 but she wouldn't go on record and they dropped (lol, innocent times, not like today where they'd print it before they even spoke to her).  There was even a secret tape of her story. 

There were stories all over the place by his second election. 

And to even get to this point you have to ignore the rumors from his time as governor.  It was a different era then and a lot of this was swept under the rug, but the idea that it wasn't out there at the time of his election is untrue.

Quote
Also there is no evidence Clinton is a serial rapist.  There is one plausible accusation with serious credibility issues that he is a rapist.

There are multiple accusers, who can name specific days and times, who were known to be linked directly to the Clintons, who had immediate falling outs.  All of which is in the public record.  There are photos linking them.  There are witnesses to various things Hillary and Bill said that while ambiguous support the story.  And of course, there's that he got caught lying about sexual situation (you know actual perjury).

I can't even imagine the mental gymnatistics you're doing to believe that Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist and Clinton is somehow not a rapist.

Quote
I can perfectly understand those who find it credible, but also find it perfectly understandable for those who don't find it credible - it is an issue about which reasonable people can legitimately disagree on the interpretation of the evidence in terms of finding it credible.

No.  Reasonable people can't disagree on credibility here.  They can disagree on whether he's guilty.

Quote
Quote
"Appears" to have engaged in perjury, what a load.

Yes 'appears' is a dramatic understatement, Kavanaugh by any reasonable standard has perjured himself in my opinion, but I have a tendency to use hedge words when referring to behavior regarding criminal conduct.

We've been through your evidence before.  It's not the hedge words that are the problem it's when you use "perjury" when you mean "you don't like him and wish you could show he lied."
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2019, 11:26:58 AM
Are you anti-science? The world, in fact, has an Islamophobia problem as well. Where it's active it creates new attacks and prompts reprisals.

I'm not anti-science, show me this evidence that the world has an Islamophobia problem.  Seriously, where did you find it?

Why do you find yourself not capable of separating a condemnation of "radical Islamic terrorism" from "Islamophobia"?  Do you find yourself unable to separate Eco terrorists from the Green movement?

Why when confronted with facts about terrorism, is the response to jump to the irrational?  Millions of American Muslims are not involved in terrorism and are not being harrassed on a daily basis.  Same in most of the west.  Why is that not evidence - to you - that this isn't about Islamophobia?  Anyone that did harrass them would find themselves on the wrong side of the law and social condemnation immediately.

Quote
I'm not saying anyone can't say "radical Islamic terrorism" and have a very legitimate point.

I think you should rethink this claim.  That's exactly why you're saying it.

Quote
I'm talking about the very big deal that was made of people who condemned attacks by Muslims while omitting their religion.

Again, we're back to ignoring science.  If I say, young men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, it's not because I'm a man hater, it's because it's a fact.

In what way would it be legitimate for you to come back and say, "but you're omitting all the other demographics that commit crimes?"

We've fallen so far down the rabbit hole that we can't even have a facts based conversation because of sensitivities.  This kind of thinking muddles the waters and prevents real progress on the areas that actually have the issues.

Show me the science - the stats - that show the other religions have radicalized terrorist threats.  Or are you asserting there's some Christian denomination that is radicalizing in the west?

Quote
I see it equally relevant to ask why Trump doesn't reach out to Muslim groups and express sympathy without having to dilute them and combine them with other groups. The conclusion to that discussion can be fairly debated, but it is news and there's nothing misleading about exploring the question.

That's a fair criticism. 

But the way the media runs it is not.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2019, 11:41:42 AM
You missed the whole second half of my proposition. The way he reacted. Would I hire a formerly violent felon without having a discussion about it? No. If they got aggressive and belligerent when I asked, would that increase my concern? If they got evasive, might I start to wonder if they had really been rehabilitated.

I didn't miss it.  If a company acted the way the Senate did they'd be sued into bankruptcy for the violation of rights.

If you ask a felon about their crimes, they walk you through them matter of factly.  They know you'll be checking their references and sometimes their parole officer and it doesn't pay to deceive.

But honestly it's a nonsensical hypothetical you're putting forward, and a poor analogy I'm describing.  If you sat down accross the desk at an interview, and I decided to confront you about allegations that you are a rapist, what would you do?  I'd be pretty pissed off, so would you. 

Thinking you can deduce K's character by how he reacted to that reality tv garbage is a sick joke.  Fact is, if he hadn't gotten pissed the media would have run with a story about how he was a pyschopath who must of done it because no one could be that calm.

It's quite like a Kafka trap and he walked out of it about as best as one could manage in that format.

Quote
I have a number of social acquaintances that I would disqualify from employment based on racial attitudes, misogyny, or inappropriate behavior - either past or present, and I'm not hiring a judge to a lifetime appointment.

Neither was the Senate.  They are not a hiring committee.  The President is the hiring committee.

Nor was the Senate doing anything remotely legitimate in how they conducted that hearing.  We have 250 years of judicial hearing precedent and that one was a black mark from day one. 

And don't lie to yourself, it wasn't Ford's accusation that caused it to go that way, we had days of public hearing before Ford ever came forward where we saw how abusive and farcical it was.

There is zero question that Kavanaugh qualified, with a sterling record in every way that matters.  It should have been a 100 - 0 vote.  Yet, you had Senators release statements that they would never support him within minutes, with "fill in the blank" announcements that they hadn't even taken the time to proof.   

There's nothing legitimate about how that process went, so I reject your attempt at implying they were doing their job.  It was never about doing their jobs.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 19, 2019, 11:45:04 AM
You don't have to prove perjury to believe someone is lying. If someone responded like K did in a job interview they wouldn't get hired, which was the context. Just like no one can prove who was in the Klan outfit, but if it is on your yearbook page.

People can lie without committing perjury. It's called giving out incorrect information without intent to deceive.

Perjury requires intent to deceive, while under oath in a legally binding proceeding no less.

So about moving the goal posts...
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 19, 2019, 11:55:14 AM
Once again, I'm going to assume you are implying Kavanaugh.  The elements alleged were for groping, not rape or attempted rape.  Which makes this assertion a bit of lie.

You're forgetting the definition was altered by "Women's Rights activists" during the Obama Administration.

Any unwanted touching, which the "victim" considers to possibly be of a sexual nature now qualifies as a sexual assault. Much like previously the legal definition of (simple) assault is any unwelcome touch.

And since there are few to no laws that deal with "rape" but rather address "sexual assault" instead, that means all sexual assaults can now be called rapes. Even without any attempt to penetrate, or even really any attempt to "handle the goods" in regards to certain anatomical regions. Just touching somebody's hand can qualify you for committing sexual assault in the eyes of some of the more extreme people out there these days.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2019, 12:06:20 PM
TheDeamon the Constitution leaves you stuck with the laws on the books at the time of the conduct in question.  At best it's a grope, and even there it's impossible to prove and would never have been brought up.

I said it before, the entire Democrat plan on this blew up in their face when Kavanaugh admitted to being a virgin (a possibility that never even crossed their minds) and then completely fell apart when he managed to alibi out for virtually the whole summer (which totally undermined the ability to slide from day to day if anyone day was asserted as "the day" and turned out not to have been plausible).
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on March 19, 2019, 12:13:49 PM
Are you anti-science? The world, in fact, has an Islamophobia problem as well. Where it's active it creates new attacks and prompts reprisals.

I'm not anti-science, show me this evidence that the world has an Islamophobia problem.  Seriously, where did you find it?

Why do you find yourself not capable of separating a condemnation of "radical Islamic terrorism" from "Islamophobia"?  Do you find yourself unable to separate Eco terrorists from the Green movement?

Why when confronted with facts about terrorism, is the response to jump to the irrational?  Millions of American Muslims are not involved in terrorism and are not being harrassed on a daily basis.  Same in most of the west.  Why is that not evidence - to you - that this isn't about Islamophobia?  Anyone that did harrass them would find themselves on the wrong side of the law and social condemnation immediately.

It's funny how the opposition on topics like this seems to result in adopting positions that are...well...opposite. I guess on this topic I feel like both of your statements somewhat miss the point. Or rather, they're both playing in a sandbox whose constraints are arbitrary and, I think, not much reflective of the reality on the ground. Media narratives create the sandbox and I suppose it's easy to pick sides within it rather than to realize that the sandbox is made-up and irrelevant.

I'll explain: the whole "Islamophobia" narrative is just weird to me. Even its name presupposes that there is a 'condition' wherein people are afraid of Islam, presumably for irrational reasons. Then the debate goes on about whether there in fact is Islamophibia - which ends up encompassing anything from irrational fear of Islam itself, to distrust of Muslims, to antagonism towards Islamic states - or whether there is no such 'condition' and it's a liberal delusion. Both sides seem to omit what seems to be a real-world fact: that several nations at present have extremely theocratic and oppressive laws in place; that many people there (not just some few) subscribe enthusiastically to these rules; that many people there (not most, but still many) do endorse violence against both infidels and apostates; and that a huge amount of terrorism comes out of these states. These appear to me to be facts, and it strikes me as being a mis-characterization to call deep concern for these facts "Islamophobia". Perhaps we can call it "Sharia-phobia" but even that doesn't do justice to it, because if you've heard stories about what life on the ground there is like you'd know that it's not even a phobia, but a completely rational concern. Calling antagonism to that a "phobia" would be like calling WWII "Nazi-phobia", which really undermines the legitimacy of that position.

Now I also agree with Seriati that it's probably true that the average Muslim in America isn't facing any kind of retributive attitude from your average American, or harassmant, although from what my Iranian friend says they face plenty of harassment from the law. Perhaps other minorities could make that same claim, although I somehow doubt it's to the same level. But as he's not Muslim but just ethnically Persian this would in fact not be evidence of Islamophobia, but rather of anti-Semitism (in its correct usage). And again I think that this seems mostly to be restricted to law enforcement, although it's probably also true that the more rural you get the more an ethnic-looking person will be subject to more quizzical scrutiny, compared to a big city.

But this "Islamophobia" thing strikes me as being a canard; a red herring, where a strawman under the rubrik of bigotry can be levied against people who have legitimate grievances with what the Muslim communities around the world seem to perpetuate. And to me the biggest difficulty here is in separating the wheat from the chaff; to know how many in those communities say what they say out of fear of persecution, and how many have drunk the Kool Aid. And in fact in 1984-type thought control environments there is no clear dividing line between these groups, and no real way to ask whether someone "really" loves Big Brother or not. However I have heard first-hand accounts of how even your average citizen there will demand complete fealty to even the smallest things (such as how many times a person prays a week), where even the most innocent question about why things are the way they are will very likely be met by even your best friend reporting you to the thought police, and tough guys appearing in the street and roughing you and your family up. Sometimes it involves weapons or guns. It's pure Orwell, full stop, but with more brutality and less finesse. No kidding people would fear this when seeing it from afar, and have it in for words like "Sharia law". But to call a hatred of tyranny with the label of "Islamophobia" and argue about who is or isn't Islamophobic is to miss the whole issue, which is in what way the knowledge of the state of those countries should affect American policy; and perhaps about questions (which we've even asked here, some years ago) about whether there's a natural connection between the religion itself and the state of those nations, or whether the two are separable. These are serious matters, but the strawman of "the Islamophobia problem" sidesteps the real issues, but no more than does skirting around the fact that there are real issues and that it isn't just an illusion that there's a problem in that department in the world.

So I do take issue with Seriati's argument that it's *only* about Islamic terrorism. It really isn't, because frankly the normal day-to-day conditions in the sharia countries are more troubling to me than discrete acts of terrorism.

Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2019, 12:16:40 PM
Media manipulation even works on me, this is literally the first I heard this:

Quote
Hemingway interjected, telling Thiessen what he said was “not true” and pointed to Trump’s remarks after Charlottesville where he said, “I am not talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalist because they should be condemned totally,” something she noted was from the same event as his “both sides” comments.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/for-the-media-to-say-that-trump-hasnt-condemned-neo-nazis-and-white-supremacists-is-not-true-mollie-heminway (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/for-the-media-to-say-that-trump-hasnt-condemned-neo-nazis-and-white-supremacists-is-not-true-mollie-heminway)

Were you under the impression that Trump flat out said that Neo-Nazis and white nationalists should be condemned totally?

Cause it seems like an awful lot of people keep claiming that he could "make it clear" and is choosing not to, when in fact he is clear and the media is choosing to prevent you from seeing it.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2019, 12:23:25 PM
Fen, there is not a single thing in your post that I don't completely agree with.  Sorry for the short hand I was using.  When I said I don't see a scientific basis for thinking Islamophobia is real, I just meant that, we're not reacting out of fear or hatred of Islam.  We're barely reacting at all, and as you noted, there are very real problems and concerns involved.

But mostly, I was pointing out that I don't think anyone's seen evidence on this anyway.  They've heard it repeated that Islamophobia is a concern from so many talking aheads that they've internalized it without actually seeing evidence of it.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 19, 2019, 12:59:22 PM
Again, we're back to ignoring science.  If I say, young men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, it's not because I'm a man hater, it's because it's a fact.

The vast majority of crimes in this country are also committed by self-identified Christians, but it would be unhelpful and derogatory to express it that way. It might even work out that way on a per-capita basis.

This is also the problem with depicting immigrants to be rapists, murderers, fraudsters, and traffickers. It's not being "PC" to corral and quantify the small portion of a population that deserves scrutiny, attention, and opposition and reaffirm that most of the people in that population are none of those things.

Fenring made some good points. I should reiterate that I don't consider concern about radical Islamic movements anything other than legitimate. Certain Islamic countries treatment of their people, especially women and definitely homosexuals, are abhorrent and disgusting. It is perfectly appropriate to reject that, it doesn't make one Islamophobic.

Thinking that Obama is a secret Muslim is Islamophobic. Trying to stop someone from building a Mosque is also. Trying to outlaw hijabs, same thing. Being so bizarrely terrified that someone's going to put Sharia law on you that your State passes laws to prevent it from taking over is. Those are my opinions, I know some people think that those are super-rational measures and concerns.

The amount of physical attacks, property damage, and intimidation remain relatively low. The number of people who feel comfortable expressing their hatred of Muslims including violent content is growing strong.

Documented anti-mosque activity (https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/discriminatory-profiling/nationwide-anti-mosque-activity) ranges from silly to terrorism.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on March 19, 2019, 02:08:10 PM
I agree with what Fenring posted

Curious what word should we use to describe a set of beliefs that lead people to deface churches, mosque's or synagogues. Or belittle its members.
How do we talk about such behavior and push back against it if we feel that such behavior is wrong.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2019, 02:41:08 PM
Thinking that Obama is a secret Muslim is Islamophobic.

It's literally not.  It's just a silly and pointless question of religious interpretation.  Some religions pass religion down through the mother or the father even if they convert. 

While I agree, some took it way too seriously, part of that was the fact that the media was in full on white wash (if you'll forgive the term) mode with Obama to hide everything and anything they thought would make him unelectable in middle America (real truth seekers there).  Against a back ground of active cover ups and lies conspiracy theories are going to abound.

But to your point its not Islamphobic without something more.

Quote
Trying to stop someone from building a Mosque is also.

Is it though?  Trying to stop a Mosque next to the location of Twin Towers, is that really Islamophobia? 

Was it insensitive to propose to put a Mosque there?  If not, are other people seeking to put buildings in places that are racially insensitive also to be welcomed?  What was the stink over Confederate monuments then? 

It's just bizarre to me that if any other group tried to build something in an area that was culturally offensive to an identifiable group (even if only part of that group was upset), the whole view of it would be flipped on its head.

Quote
Trying to outlaw hijabs, same thing.

Anti-Muslim or Pro-Women?  Boys are rude to even look at girls in short skirts, because they aren't there to be your eye candy, but totally okay for dad's to insist their daughters where hijabs?

Quote
Being so bizarrely terrified that someone's going to put Sharia law on you that your State passes laws to prevent it from taking over is.

We have multiple communities that have non-legal court systems in the US.  None of them should be encouraged, and they should all be undermined.

The protests are on US courts agreeing through arbitration laws to apply religious laws.  Not sure how this remotely gets a pass from the freedom from religion crowd (oh yes I am, they're hypocrites).

Quote
The amount of physical attacks, property damage, and intimidation remain relatively low. The number of people who feel comfortable expressing their hatred of Muslims including violent content is growing strong.

You keep "asserting" this.  Where is the evidence?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on March 19, 2019, 02:57:37 PM
Quote
Thinking that Obama is a secret Muslim is Islamophobic.

Quote
It's literally not.  It's just a silly and pointless question of religious interpretation

I disagree. The statement may or may not be Islamophobic however to know if it was or if it was not you need to understand the motivation behind the one saying it.
This is were I have the most trouble following your arguments lately as they suggest a closed mind which I know is't true.. yet your rhetoric suggest to me that you don't think Islamophobia exists at all? 

Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 19, 2019, 03:03:58 PM
The Islamophobia in the Obama thing was the part about how he was conspiring with Muslims to bring down the country, not just the people who wondered about his personal religious practice.

48% of Muslims have reported racial or religious discrimination.

If someone is forced to wear a hijab, its the force that's important. We don't outlaw tattoos because abusive people force someone to get one. We don't talk about outlawing yarmulkes, despite societal religious pressure to wear one.

As far as proof, I linked a bunch of incidents. I'm not talking about the one cherry-picked example in Manhattan.

US family courts have included religion in their considerations, including Judaism and Christianity - right or wrong. If you're against all of it, I'm with you. Craft your law properly, and while we're on the subject, take Under God out of the pledge given in schools.

Quote
It's just bizarre to me that if any other group tried to build something in an area that was culturally offensive to an identifiable group (even if only part of that group was upset), the whole view of it would be flipped on its head.

So if my neighbors and I are offended by a Christian church, society is going to be on our side if we get our anti-Christian councilman to block the zoning for it?

Quote
Since the 2016 presidential election, President Trump's views expressed on the campaign trail and from the Oval Office have stoked the fire of Islamophobic rhetoric in the political mainstream, proliferating hate speech and anti-Muslim sentiment. According to a leading Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in the U.S. rose 91 percent in the first half of 2017, compared with the same period in 2016. The most frequent type of incidents, documented by CAIR in the second quarter of 2017 involved harassment, defined as a non-violent or non-threatening incident. The second most common type of bias incidents was hate crimes and involved physical violence or property damage. CAIR said the most prevalent trigger of anti-Muslim bias incidents in 2017 remains the victim's ethnicity or national origin, accounting for 32 percent of the total.

Quote
The number of assaults against Muslims in the United States rose significantly between 2015 and 2016, easily surpassing the modern peak reached in 2001, the year of the September 11 terrorist attacks, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new hate crimes statistics from the FBI. In 2016, there were 127 reported victims of aggravated or simple assault, compared with 91 the year before and 93 in 2001.

Quote
Certain types of crimes that damage or destroy property, including vandalism, also have risen, from 70 cases against Muslims in 2015 to 92 last year.

Sources include CAIR, FBI and Pew Research.

Emphasis mine. But I'm sure you'll reject this out of hand.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 19, 2019, 03:07:57 PM
Quote
Thinking that Obama is a secret Muslim is Islamophobic.

Quote
It's literally not.  It's just a silly and pointless question of religious interpretation

I disagree. The statement may or may not be Islamophobic however to know if it was or if it was not you need to understand the motivation behind the one saying it.
This is were I have the most trouble following your arguments lately as they suggest a closed mind which I know is't true.. yet your rhetoric suggest to me that you don't think Islamophobia exists at all?

I'm talking about the group that thought that Obama was secretly plotting with Muslims to bring down America and turn it into an Islamic State.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on March 19, 2019, 03:11:43 PM
Quote
Trying to stop a Mosque next to the location of Twin Towers...

How many blocks away from the Twin Towers' location would it take to be not "next" to it? ;)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on March 19, 2019, 03:14:50 PM
A FBU Report shows nearly 23% increase in religion-based hate crimes last year and 37% spike in anti-Jewish hate crimes
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017

Asked by a reporter on Friday if he saw an increase globally in the threat of white nationalism, the US president responded: “I don’t really. I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems. I guess, if you look at what happened in New Zealand, perhaps that’s a case. I don’t know enough about it yet.”

This does not make Trump Islamophobic. I suspect that he is certain in his outlook on the matter, however that does not mean we can't debate the matter and ask the question of our leaders that if hate crime is on the rise should we do something about it.
The when you compare Trumps tweets about what Jussie Smollett and what the NZ shooter did it does 'beg the question'. But again not Islamophobic it what Trump believes and is willing to defend or do something about. He dons't see hate crime as a problem and that is that. I don't know if he's right, I'd like to see some good debates on it, Debates the don't come down to name calling but that's not going to happen. Love to see Trump debate the issue but on't think he has the skill and even if he did if anyone could hear him. But as I said I think that works for him more then it hurts him
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on March 19, 2019, 03:16:39 PM
Quote
I'm talking about the group that thought that Obama was secretly plotting with Muslims to bring down America and turn it into an Islamic State.
That group I would agree qualifies for the label of Islamophobic
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on March 19, 2019, 03:27:56 PM
Quote
Both sides seem to omit what seems to be a real-world fact: that several nations at present have extremely theocratic and oppressive laws in place; that many people there (not just some few) subscribe enthusiastically to these rules; that many people there (not most, but still many) do endorse violence against both infidels and apostates; and that a huge amount of terrorism comes out of these states. These appear to me to be facts, and it strikes me as being a mis-characterization to call deep concern for these facts "Islamophobia".

Here's the thing, Fenring: what do these things have to do with Islam itself?

What does the actions of theocratic countries have to do with Muslims in New Zealand?  Or in Indonesia?  Or the Phillipines?  Or the U.S.?

What does the terrorists from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan have to do with the guy at my local mosque?  My coworker on the other side of the cubicle wall?  My manager?  Can I draw any conclusions about what they think or feel from the fact they are Muslim?

There are a number of backward countries that think their culture and religion are ordained by God and everyone else should bow to them.  But what does it matter which religion those countries subscribe to?  Do you think for one moment that if they were Christian, or Buddhist, or Islam, or Jewish, or Zoroastrian, that it would make much difference?  Do you seriously believe that it is the religion that causes the violence, or the religion is used as an excuse for the violence?  That those who advocate violence couldn't twist the words of any of those religions to justify their hate and murder?

When people think that these countries justify their fear of Islam is when they are practicing Islamophobia.  When the President enacts a "Muslim ban" that we see Islamophobia.  When we think the hatred and violence comes from the religion, and not the particular practitioners and their particular culture, is when we cross over from reasonable concern into a fear of the other--the other religion, in this case.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on March 19, 2019, 04:29:02 PM
Here's the thing, Fenring: what do these things have to do with Islam itself?

Isn't that the same question I asked, and that we've addressed here before? Good luck answering it. Maybe nothing, maybe a lot. It's really a tough one.

Quote
What does the actions of theocratic countries have to do with Muslims in New Zealand?  Or in Indonesia?  Or the Phillipines?  Or the U.S.?

I think you are drastically overestimating how much national borders mean in subjects like this one.

Quote
What does the terrorists from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan have to do with the guy at my local mosque?  My coworker on the other side of the cubicle wall?  My manager?  Can I draw any conclusions about what they think or feel from the fact they are Muslim?

Are you implying definitively that they have *nothing* to do with any of these people? That would be a gross overbid, just as much as it would be to suppose that any given person is suspect because they're Muslim. Neither claim holds water. I can give an anecdotal example:

I know a Muslim refugee who fled because of persection, when he was questioning some tenets of his religion (not rejecting them, just asking questions). There were incidents that brought his whole family close to death. He has a strong awareness that many people where he lives now have ties to people from his original country, and he is seriously concerned that the people hunting him down back there will get in touch with people here and finish the job. I don't think he's wrong. There are connections between groups, organizations, private families, and all sorts of other connections that don't care about borders but rather have other allegiances. This fellow I refer to isn't interested in your idea that the guy in your local mosque has nothing to do with it all; he knows that's not a safe assumption, and he's not being paranoid, and certainly not going to stake his life to it.

Quote
There are a number of backward countries that think their culture and religion are ordained by God and everyone else should bow to them.  But what does it matter which religion those countries subscribe to?  Do you think for one moment that if they were Christian, or Buddhist, or Islam, or Jewish, or Zoroastrian, that it would make much difference?  Do you seriously believe that it is the religion that causes the violence, or the religion is used as an excuse for the violence?  That those who advocate violence couldn't twist the words of any of those religions to justify their hate and murder?

I don't disagree that many sorts of zealous belief systems could introduce Orwellian measures to ensure control. We may well ask whether there are certain categories of belief systems that align better with such a system than others, and in fact that goes back to your first question. But this is a subject well beyond our ability to study in any meaningful way right now. Remaining agnostic is the safest course if you wanted to avoid error; otherwise you can play a hunch in either the direction that Islam itself may be problematic, or that it isn't.

Quote
When people think that these countries justify their fear of Islam is when they are practicing Islamophobia.  When the President enacts a "Muslim ban" that we see Islamophobia.  When we think the hatred and violence comes from the religion, and not the particular practitioners and their particular culture, is when we cross over from reasonable concern into a fear of the other--the other religion, in this case.

Are you quite sure these measures aren't a reaction to a real problem, and that the reaction itself may simply be wrong-headed or ineffective? I have no doubt that government is capable of addressing a legitimate problem stupidly, but that doesn't imply that "the people" are Islamophobic particularly. And btw I'm not denying that there really are anti-Islam bigots out there; of course there are, just like every other kind. But what I'm addressing is whether "Islamophobia" is a real concern to battle, or an illusory topic meant to further the right vs left divide in America. I don't like wedge issues that exist *only to be* wedge issues and serve no other purpose.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 19, 2019, 04:34:55 PM
Of note on "religious discrimination" and polling methodologies, keep in mind that Islam is not monolithic and a fair bit of the discrimination they are reporting may actually involve other Muslims.

As a Mormon. I was on the receiving end of a fair bit of religious discrimination while in the Navy as well, from people who claimed to be Christian no less. I don't think the world's falling apart because of it.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 19, 2019, 05:03:30 PM
Quote
I know a Muslim refugee who fled because of persection, when he was questioning some tenets of his religion (not rejecting them, just asking questions). There were incidents that brought his whole family close to death. He has a strong awareness that many people where he lives now have ties to people from his original country, and he is seriously concerned that the people hunting him down back there will get in touch with people here and finish the job. I don't think he's wrong.

If you are him, Salman Rushdie, or Jamal Khashoggi, okay maybe you have a reason to fear random Muslims on the street. Just like if you have osteoporosis or hemophilia, you have a rational increased fear of heights. The fact that those kind of revenge attacks could be a real part of his life doesn't have anything to do with justifying an average person's fear.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 19, 2019, 05:04:55 PM
Quote
Since the 2016 presidential election, President Trump's views expressed on the campaign trail and from the Oval Office have stoked the fire of Islamophobic rhetoric in the political mainstream, proliferating hate speech and anti-Muslim sentiment. According to a leading Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in the U.S. rose 91 percent in the first half of 2017, compared with the same period in 2016. The most frequent type of incidents, documented by CAIR in the second quarter of 2017 involved harassment, defined as a non-violent or non-threatening incident. The second most common type of bias incidents was hate crimes and involved physical violence or property damage. CAIR said the most prevalent trigger of anti-Muslim bias incidents in 2017 remains the victim's ethnicity or national origin, accounting for 32 percent of the total.

Ah, statistics, how I love them. A 91 percent increase nationwide you say? That sounds ghastly and grim. Better declare a national emergency.

Quote
Quote
The number of assaults against Muslims in the United States rose significantly between 2015 and 2016, easily surpassing the modern peak reached in 2001, the year of the September 11 terrorist attacks, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new hate crimes statistics from the FBI. In 2016, there were 127 reported victims of aggravated or simple assault, compared with 91 the year before and 93 in 2001.

Quote
Certain types of crimes that damage or destroy property, including vandalism, also have risen, from 70 cases against Muslims in 2015 to 92 last year.

So, about small sample sizes and how that translates into reality....

Starting with the last item first. Going from 70 to 92 incidents in 3 years, nationally, does not an epidemic make.  Although I could generate a headline that reads "Vandalism hate crimes against Muslims are now at 131% of the level seen in 2015." Sounds nice and alarming, but doesn't mean much in a population of millions. The people who did it need to be found, and need to be stopped. but it is not verging on "a National Identity Crises."

Likewise you're talking about 127 aggravated/simple assaults that were considered hate crimes against Muslims in 2016, compared to 91 in 2015 or 93 such incidents in 2001. So they saw a nearly 40% increase in "hate motivated assaults" between 2015 and 2016.

In both cases the raw % of increase presents a bigger number than the actual increase in the number of actual events. (31% increase with 22 additional cases over the prior year, and a 40% increase with 26 additional cases over the prior year.)

So for a population of some 3.45 Million Muslims in the United States,  that in the year of "VERY EMBOLDENED RACISTS" only a few dozen additional incidents happened "above the baseline" tends to say something about how small the population of overtly racist and hate filled people really is.

Other things to consider is not everything happens in a vacuum. Some of this stuff was probably on a time-lag that was years in the making, so Trump had little to do with what happened beyond bad timing. While in other cases they're probably not reacting to Trump, but instead reacting to some of the screwball stuff that passes for Anti-Trump. I could see some Anti-Trumpers pushing people over the edge who could give a *bleep* about Donald Trump.

And of course, then there is Mr Smollet and company.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 19, 2019, 05:09:34 PM
There are a number of backward countries that think their culture and religion are ordained by God and everyone else should bow to them.  But what does it matter which religion those countries subscribe to?  Do you think for one moment that if they were Christian, or Buddhist, or Islam, or Jewish, or Zoroastrian, that it would make much difference?  Do you seriously believe that it is the religion that causes the violence, or the religion is used as an excuse for the violence?  That those who advocate violence couldn't twist the words of any of those religions to justify their hate and murder?

Islam is a special case, in that their Holy Book is a LOT more militant than the holy book/works of any other major denomination out there. In that respect, it is far easier to twist Islam into achieving violent ends than most others.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 19, 2019, 05:13:53 PM
I figured when I came up with support, I would get a multiplicity of reasons why it was wrong or didn't matter. Even when the stats come from the FBI. Probably some secret Muslims in there filing reports.

I'm sorry there are no ready statistics on the number of anti-Muslim statements on social media, right wing news, or private conversations. But I'm sure those would turn out to be wrong also.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 19, 2019, 05:15:02 PM
I figured when I came up with support, I would get a multiplicity of reasons why it was wrong or didn't matter. Even when the stats come from the FBI. Probably some secret Muslims in there filing reports.

I'm sorry there are no ready statistics on the number of anti-Muslim statements on social media, right wing news, or private conversations. But I'm sure those would turn out to be wrong also.

Anti-Muslim statements on Social Media? Better make sure they're not Russian Bots first.  8)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on March 19, 2019, 06:10:37 PM
Quote
I know a Muslim refugee who fled because of persection, when he was questioning some tenets of his religion (not rejecting them, just asking questions). There were incidents that brought his whole family close to death. He has a strong awareness that many people where he lives now have ties to people from his original country, and he is seriously concerned that the people hunting him down back there will get in touch with people here and finish the job. I don't think he's wrong. There are connections between groups, organizations, private families, and all sorts of other connections that don't care about borders but rather have other allegiances. This fellow I refer to isn't interested in your idea that the guy in your local mosque has nothing to do with it all; he knows that's not a safe assumption, and he's not being paranoid, and certainly not going to stake his life to it.

I hear you, Fenring.  That's why you need to be careful around Italians; they may have Mafia connections.  Among Russians, because they may have Oligarch connections.  Among Mexicans, because they may have Mexican cartel connections.  And among white Christians, because they may have Aryan Nation connections.  One can never be too careful. ;)

Quote
Are you quite sure these measures aren't a reaction to a real problem, and that the reaction itself may simply be wrong-headed or ineffective?

There is a problem out there.  But if you mislabel the problem and misbelieve the source of the problem (like it being simply a "Muslim" problem), then you can't help but come up with wrong-headed and ineffective solutions.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on March 19, 2019, 06:15:50 PM
Quote
Islam is a special case, in that their Holy Book is a LOT more militant than the holy book/works of any other major denomination out there. In that respect, it is far easier to twist Islam into achieving violent ends than most others.

Difficulty in twisting has never been a problem.  After all, the Old Testament describes a God that commanded genocide.  Doesn't take much to say that He also wants you to kill the stranger next door.  All you need is the desire to kill. :(
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2019, 06:29:36 PM
Likewise you're talking about 127 aggravated/simple assaults that were considered hate crimes against Muslims in 2016, compared to 91 in 2015 or 93 such incidents in 2001. So they saw a nearly 40% increase in "hate motivated assaults" between 2015 and 2016.

Good write up.  I'd add that there is in fact a rising statistical trend for hate crimes.  There's also substantial evidence that the trend is at least in part a consequence of changes in how people report and categorize the events.  That really confounds determining if there has been any objective increase.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on March 19, 2019, 08:26:51 PM

So the story goes.  If Fox had an interview with someone that proves Russian collusion and is sitting on it so the author can write a book after the Trump Presidency is over do you feel the same way?

The timing on the hold and the release is nonsense.  It was held to protect the Senate race, and it's being released now so it can be old news when the voting starts.  It's blatant manipulation.

The reporter didn't discover a fact and then plan not to release it.  He didn't have the fact and was incapable of discovering it without a prior commitment of not releasing the fact until after a specified time.  There is a world of difference between the two scenarios.  The most ethical scenario would have been for him to request not being told the fact until the specified time, but it then would have delayed the publication of his book.  As a journalist he can't violate the trust of his sources, so it was either not know the fact or delay reporting it - he didn't have the option of finding a source for the fact and then reporting it because the only ones who knew were the cDc members he was interviewing for his book.

Since the fact is pretty silly and unimportant there wasn't much issue with delaying it.  For something serious there might be some rational for violating ones journalistic ethics and violating a promise - for something silly and trivial like this there isn't any reason.

Quote
I didn't think Beto was accused of Rape, where did you get that?

Once again, I'm going to assume you are implying Kavanaugh.  The elements alleged were for groping, not rape or attempted rape.  Which makes this assertion a bit of lie.

He is accussed of sexual assault, and particularly attempted rape.  I'm not sure how you misremembered them.  The most definitely were not for groping.  She alleges he held her down, forcefully tried to remove her clothes, and convered her mouth when she tried to scream.

Here are her accussations, to be clear

Quote
Ford publicly came forward in a Washington Post story last Sunday; she accused Kavanaugh of forcing himself on her while the two were at a party in high school. She says he pinned her down on a bed, attempted to remove her clothing, and covered her mouth when she tried to scream. Kavanaugh has unequivocally denied these allegations.
Ford says she did not talk about the allegations with anyone until 2012, during a couples therapy session with her husband. She provided the Post with notes from therapy sessions in 2012 and 2013 when she described an attempted rape that she experienced while she was in high school.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/22/17886814/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-deborah-ramirez

Quote
I'm just curious, where are you going with this?  Are you going to 'splain anything and everything he does cause he's the man?

No, I'm for accurate accussations.  He was suggesting Beto must have used a lot of long distance, rising to the level of felony.  I was pointing out that isn't the case.  He was stating that many had been charged with felonies for similar behavior - in fact under Texas law minors could not be charged with a felony for his behavior.  Crunch said that Beto engaged in criminal behavior till his late 20's, the sources I see suggest that he largely ceased involvement with the cDc upon entering college and that his one actual alleged crime (theft of phone service) likely didn't go on after he entered college.

Quote
In this world, if he were a Republican anyone of the following would be a disqualifier:  drunk driving, participation in hacking group, writing short fiction about killing kids (I mean my goodness, Beto shouldn't be allowed to visit a school on the see something say something modern standard).

Drunk driving as a teen might or might not be a disqualifier for me (depends on the level of intoxication, circumstances, behavior since).  Participation in a 'hacking' group might or might not (again depends on the specifics) though generally wouldn't be unless it was malicious hacking.  Writing *censored*ty fiction as a 15 year old?  Almost definitely not.  Only morons would find that disqualifing (admittedly there are plenty of morons who vote).

Quote
Meanwhile, Romney was attacked for an unproven assertion of high school bullyling,

I never heard of Romney being a high school bully - depending on the circumstances probably wouldn't be disqualifying. 

Quote
and you won't let anything go on Kavanaugh even though there's no proof and most every assertion was absurd.

There was nothing absurd about the claim of attempted rape.  I think reasonable people can disagree as to how well it was substantiated.  I'd say it was better substantiated than the claim against Clinton and there has been far less time and effort expended to substantiate it.

Quote
On the whole hacker thing, I'm assuming this was between 83 and 95, that's exactly the time window (post War Games) when enforcement and legal actively ramped up consistently every year.  And yes, the feds did take it seriously, though back then they were almost completely focused on government systems.

As I said - anything malicious was taken seriously.  Low level intrusions that were harmeless were largely ignored.  Phone phreaking - which is the only thing that Beto appears to have done - wasn't prosecutable against teens at that time.

Quote
I'm not aware of any serious litigation related to personal use of mixtapes.  Nor of any non-commercial use.   Selling a mixtape, sure.  I'm not even aware of anything related to using them at a public venue (it's whether you have the right to use the songs at all, not whether you copied them onto a single tape that mattered).  I mean heck, virtually every tape player in the 80s had 2 tape decks specifically to copy songs.

The two tapes were officially marketed for making 'backups' - which had been found to be fair use - and for editing.  Now - if purchasers happened to use them to copy a tape borrowed from a friend - then of course the tape player manufacturers certainly condemned such unlawful behavior.

Quote
So you have no problem moving groping to rape, and no problem moving drunk driving to underage consumption (even though he was 26 at the time of the DWI)?  I mean if I had to guess, Beto acted like an entitled white kid, because that's exactly what he was.
Personally I'm not particularly interested in Beto - so wasn't aware of his DUI at age 26.  I was instead doing an analogy suggesting that by Crunches reasoning there is noone in the US that shouldn't be a serious criminal because most people (including myself) have engaged in underage drinking; or speeding.  Similarly most have engaged in copyright infringement, and a large percentage have engaged in shoplifting.

Regarding DUI in general - I think it is a pretty stupid thing to do and it is something that requires restitution and regaining trust.  I've no idea whether Beto has rehabilitated that behavior to my satisfaction.  I did feel that GWB Jr. did so to my satisfaction.

Quote
Can you see your own flaw?

There wasn't a flaw in my reasoning, you simply assumed I had knowledge of the Beto incident and thus misinterpreted it.  I find DWI as an adult to be pretty serious and irresponsible.  Living in Alaska I know a lot of people who have done so at similar ages.  I have a foster brother who went to jail for a long time for manslaughter because of it (my understanding is that he was drunk, the other driver was drunk and ran a red light, since he was drunk - Alaska law holds him as responsible, even if the other drivers behavior caused the accident).  I have another foster brother who had a major license suspension before turning his life around - i do consider him responsible now.

Basically I view typical teen behavior to not really need to be addressed.  I find serious teen behavior outside the norm needing to be addressed.  I think that adults engaging in certain crimes that we might excuse as 'typical teen behavior' to need greater scrutiny.


Quote
That Ford spoke well?  She had no details - at all, her friend who she said was at the party said she believed her, but personally she had never been a party with Kavanaugh and didn't know him.  She never told anyone any details for decades.  She didn't remember, the day, the year or any details about how she got there or left.  That is not credible.

I'm not looking to rehash this discussion, see prior discussions if you like for details.  I'm well aware that you don't think the accussations are credible.  I think reasonable people can disagree.  For instance, I think perjury is a pretty good reason that points to credibility.

Quote
Second, what the elements of rape and attempted rape?  The accusation was of groping, there are no elements present that even plausible move it to rape or attempted rape.  That's just a libel you won't let go.

I said above that accussations of rape and attempted rape are serious enough norm violations that they should be investigated.  I have not stated that Kavanuagh has raped someone.

As to the elements of attempted rape, see above - they are clearly met in the description that Ford provided of the events.

Quote
There's no applicable statute of limitations on rape.  If it were credible, MD could pursue the charges with or without Ford.  Yet MD has not done so, and Ford has not filed charges.  Why not?

Again, I've never stated that he has raped anyone.  As to why hasn't he been charged.  There are statute of limitations for what attempted rape.  Also credible isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt", I don't think a jury would convinct based on the strength of the evidence.  It is strong enough for a reasonable person to believe it likely, but not strong enough that a reasonable jury should not find sufficient doubt for an acquittal.

Quote
You've laid out the perjury nonsense before and it's a big nothing burger.  You can go to his actual quotes and see what you'd have to prove and you've never shown that anyone can demonstrate that what he said was untrue.

I'm familiar with your opinion on the matter.  I think that you are wrong, but I'm not going to take the time to rehash it.  You saying "nothing burger" doesn't make it so.

Quote
In fact, its very certain that he didn't perjure himself.

You are free to believe what you will.  I think there is a clear history on this board of me being fairly objective regardless of the political party, whereas you have a tendency to ignore any facts that are unflattering for Republicans, and overstating facts (or ignoring esculpatory facts) that are unflattering to Democrats.\


Quote
He was borne in 72, his burglary arrest (granted seems minor) was in 95 and his DWI was in 98.  That'd be when he was 23 and 26 respectively.  Did you look for a source, or are you limiting your call to the hacking?

Ah, yes, I thought he was refering to hacking.  His DWI is definitely serious, if he ends up a candidate that I'm interested in I'll dig into it more, but right now I've not really spent much time looking at him (basically the only thing I've read about is his cDc membership and that he has ran for Senate, I've not payed any attention to him otherwise).

Quote
Again, you make up an allegation and act like it's real.  Do you have some evidence that Trump is a rapist, let alone a serial rapist?  I think there's some people in Congress that'd be interested.

Sure.  I think that Ivanka Trump was definitely raped.  There are other allegations that I think are less strong, but plausible.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-traffic-accusations/

Quote
LR why do you keep saying things you have to know are not true?

Do you agree that if Ivana's description was accurate, that lawfullymeets all of the legal elements of rape?

Quote
There were rumors of Broaddrick's story before he was first elected in 1992.  You can go to her Wiki and see that she was talking to people before then and that it even went to the NYT's and LA Times in 1992 but she wouldn't go on record and they dropped (lol, innocent times, not like today where they'd print it before they even spoke to her).  There was even a secret tape of her story. 

There were stories all over the place by his second election.

And she publicly stated that the rumors were false.  I tend to believe alleged victims without strong evidence to refute it.

Quote
And to even get to this point you have to ignore the rumors from his time as governor.  It was a different era then and a lot of this was swept under the rug, but the idea that it wasn't out there at the time of his election is untrue.

I don't or (didn't) have to ignore anything.  I'm not someone who follows newspapers or TV news, and while I was deeply interested in social policy at that time, I didn't follow politics at all.  I think my first Presidential election vote was for Kerry in 2004.

Quote
There are multiple accusers, who can name specific days and times, who were known to be linked directly to the Clintons, who had immediate falling outs.  All of which is in the public record.  There are photos linking them.  There are witnesses to various things Hillary and Bill said that while ambiguous support the story.  And of course, there's that he got caught lying about sexual situation (you know actual perjury).

You may be aware of accussations I'm not.  I've never been particularly interested in or fond of Clinton.  The accussations I've been aware of haven't been credible.  Regarding perjury - I agree though I think the argument that "sexual relations" were defined by the judge and the attorney's to exclude receiving oral sex is persuasive as regards to that aspect of the claim of perjury.

Quote
I can't even imagine the mental gymnatistics you're doing to believe that Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist and Clinton is somehow not a rapist.

Personally I think that reasonable people can disagree in both cases.

Quote
No.  Reasonable people can't disagree on credibility here.  They can disagree on whether he's guilty.

I think they can reasonably disagree on both aspects.

Quote
We've been through your evidence before.  It's not the hedge words that are the problem it's when you use "perjury" when you mean "you don't like him and wish you could show he lied."

It is amazing how often you conclude that the only reason someone can believe evidence against a Republican is due to their personal feelings towards the individual or their political leanings.

While I think you are a thoughtful and intelligent man, I don't think you are capable of rational evaluation of evidence when it comes to evaluating politicians that you agree or disagree with.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 19, 2019, 09:27:57 PM
"Writing *censored*ty fiction as a 15 year old?  Almost definitely not.  Only morons would find that disqualifing (admittedly there are plenty of morons who vote)."

Was it fiction though or was he writing an actual fantasy of his? Isn't there a difference?

A teen could write a fictional story about a school shooting and that's one thing but if the teen writes it as his personal fantasy isn't that a little different? I don't know maybe it's the same difference but it seems a bit different to me.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 08:21:32 AM
Quote
Sure.  I think that Ivanka Trump was definitely raped.  There are other allegations that I think are less strong, but plausible.

I don't think you meant to say Ivanka. Ivanka is his daughter, the article you linked is about Ivana.

Trump hasn't raped Ivanka, he's just made nauseating comments about how hot his offspring is, and posed for several disturbing photos with her sitting in his lap as a teenager. <OMB>
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 10:45:10 AM
Other evidence.

Quote
Religious bias (Based on Table 1.)
Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,679 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-biased offenses showed:

58.1 percent were anti-Jewish.
18.7 percent were anti-Islamic (Muslim).
4.5 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
2.4 percent were anti-Protestant.
1.8 percent were anti-Other Christian.

Of the total population, 1.9% are Jewish and 0.9% are Muslim. Per-capita that makes an incident targeting the Jewish faith about 50% more likely than Muslim. I'm actually kind of surprised by that ratio, I would have expected that to be roughly flipped.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on March 20, 2019, 01:58:22 PM
Quote
Sure.  I think that Ivanka Trump was definitely raped.  There are other allegations that I think are less strong, but plausible.

I don't think you meant to say Ivanka. Ivanka is his daughter, the article you linked is about Ivana.

Trump hasn't raped Ivanka, he's just made nauseating comments about how hot his offspring is, and posed for several disturbing photos with her sitting in his lap as a teenager. <OMB>

My apologies, I did indeed mean Ivana and not Ivanka.  I do not believe there is anything to suggest that he has ever raped Ivanka.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2019, 03:19:44 PM
Of the total population, 1.9% are Jewish and 0.9% are Muslim. Per-capita that makes an incident targeting the Jewish faith about 50% more likely than Muslim. I'm actually kind of surprised by that ratio, I would have expected that to be roughly flipped.

In a twisted way, I'm not. The probability that Muslims with strong views regarding Israel might "act out" towards Jews in the US are probably quite good. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone really knows of many Jews in America who are likely to be targeting Muslims for anything qualifying as a hate-crime inside the US.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 03:39:14 PM
I think you'll probably find there are a lot more Christians going after the Jews in this country, by the raw numbers. There's no way to know, because a lot of these reported crimes don't have an identified perpetrator. I would probably believe that the more extreme plans might line up that way.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 20, 2019, 04:01:41 PM
I think you'll find, if you really look, that hate crime statistics are not consistently recorded at any two points in the US, nor are they consistently recorded year over year.

It'd be like if we wanted to record breakfast meat selection by animal, and one city comes back with no results, the next records bacon and eggs as "pig" but eggs alone as "domestic avian".  While a third records bacon by type of pig, eggs by type of chicken and also adds in separate categories for canadian bacon and ham but only gets records from diners and not from homes, and only on every other Tues (and doesn't extrapolate them), while another does the same but on Friday's and doesn't account for religious persons that don't eat meat on Fridays.

Meanwhile there's tons of dispute about what constitutes a hate crime.  Is every assault on a gay man a hate crime?  Or only those where some one is screaming homophobic slurs?  Is it up to the victim to tell us they felt like it was a hate crime, or some kind of objective proof based on the attacker?  Is a false flag still a hate crime because the victims felt hate, even if another member of the class was the perpetrator?

Couple that with increasing amounts of snowflakes that feel oppression no matter what the circumstances are and you have a questionable set of statistics.

Truth is we don't know how common "hate" crimes are and we certainly don't know how common they were. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on March 20, 2019, 04:06:08 PM
Are you referring to conservative "snowflakes" or liberal "snowflakes" here, Seriati?  Or both types, since they are pretty much the same?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on March 20, 2019, 04:10:49 PM
Are you referring to conservative "snowflakes" or liberal "snowflakes" here, Seriati?  Or both types, since they are pretty much the same?
The increased societal norm that one should be shown respect without having any requirement to show respect in return is a curious one to be sure.  It seems to be bipartisan and span all ages and income levels.  While not universal yet, it sure is widespread in the US.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2019, 04:23:16 PM
Are you referring to conservative "snowflakes" or liberal "snowflakes" here, Seriati?  Or both types, since they are pretty much the same?
The increased societal norm that one should be shown respect without having any requirement to show respect in return is a curious one to be sure.  It seems to be bipartisan and span all ages and income levels.  While not universal yet, it sure is widespread in the US.

I'm confused by the whole thing about "I deserve respect simply for being me" because it completely destroys the whole concept of what respect is even supposed to be.

You deserve to be treated with basic human dignity as you're a human being.

You deserve to be treated with respect once you've earned the right to be respected for something.

And of course, if you want to be treated respectfully, that also means you should be respecting others as well.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 04:49:51 PM
I think you'll find, if you really look, that hate crime statistics are not consistently recorded at any two points in the US, nor are they consistently recorded year over year.

It'd be like if we wanted to record breakfast meat selection by animal, and one city comes back with no results, the next records bacon and eggs as "pig" but eggs alone as "domestic avian".  While a third records bacon by type of pig, eggs by type of chicken and also adds in separate categories for canadian bacon and ham but only gets records from diners and not from homes, and only on every other Tues (and doesn't extrapolate them), while another does the same but on Friday's and doesn't account for religious persons that don't eat meat on Fridays.

Meanwhile there's tons of dispute about what constitutes a hate crime.  Is every assault on a gay man a hate crime?  Or only those where some one is screaming homophobic slurs?  Is it up to the victim to tell us they felt like it was a hate crime, or some kind of objective proof based on the attacker?  Is a false flag still a hate crime because the victims felt hate, even if another member of the class was the perpetrator?

Couple that with increasing amounts of snowflakes that feel oppression no matter what the circumstances are and you have a questionable set of statistics.

Truth is we don't know how common "hate" crimes are and we certainly don't know how common they were.

An awful lot of crime statistics have some give to them. Crimes that are reclassified to make a PD look better. Cities fudging the books to improve their public image. Sometimes a state doesn't provide all the same data, and you can't compare felonies between states because its not consistent. Had the records existed from the 1800's, they wouldn't even have classified killing an Indian for fun to be a crime at all.

Nonetheless, its better than nothing. Hate crimes as reported to the FBI have to meet some basic criteria, it isn't just somebody feeling offended.

Of the 8,437 reported hate crime offenses in 2017:

27.6 percent were destruction/damage/vandalism
27.1 percent were intimidation.
20.7 percent were simple assault.
11.7 percent were aggravated assault.
The remaining offenses included additional crimes against persons, property, and society.

The only one that can be explained with "snowflake" is the intimidation part. It is also possible that somebody got punched and racial slurs were thrown around without any actual bias against that group at large.

Usually, they try to declare that in the methodology, and they even list this warning:

Quote
Valid assessments about crime, including hate crime, are possible only with careful study and analysis of the various conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. (See Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics: Their Proper Use.) In addition, some data in this publication may not be comparable to those in prior editions of Hate Crime Statistics because of differing levels of participation from year to year. Therefore, the reader is cautioned against making simplistic comparisons between the statistical data of this program and that of others with differing methodologies or even comparing individual reporting units solely on the basis of their agency type.

So, yes, I am doing exactly what they say not to do. I'm not sure what the alternative is. Can't fall back on anecdotes and news, because those might just be retransmitted hoaxes. Can't fall back on asking the organizations that advocate for those groups, because they are trying to inflate the problem. Can't impose a uniform data collection from the federal level, that would be interference with local authority via unfunded mandate.

So we should do what? Throw up our hands and say the whole thing is unknowable so we should just pretend it doesn't happen, or continues to happen at the same rate as it always did? Or just stop caring about curbing ethnic and religious violence?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2019, 05:01:52 PM
So we should do what? Throw up our hands and say the whole thing is unknowable so we should just pretend it doesn't happen, or continues to happen at the same rate as it always did? Or just stop caring about curbing ethnic and religious violence?

Maybe realize that at its core a LOT of has to do with feelings of empowerment on the part of the perpetrator?

You're fixating on the symptom, not the cause. Yes, we can't "ignore the symptoms" either, and the more egregious offenses certain do warrant being "stepped on."

But until you address the root issue, that desire to feel empowered, this is a problem that will just shift from one thing to another in a never ending cycle of adding new prohibited things.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 20, 2019, 05:39:20 PM
The reporter didn't discover a fact and then plan not to release it.  He didn't have the fact and was incapable of discovering it without a prior commitment of not releasing the fact until after a specified time.  There is a world of difference between the two scenarios.

Maybe you should take another look.  The reporter himself said he'd figured out it was Beto, but that neither the group nor Beto would confirm it without the deal. 

There's less of a world there.  And it's not like we have to speculate about how this would be handled, the media has repeatedly run unconfirmed reports and accusations against Trump.

That said, this part doesn't really appall me.  It's no worse or better than Trump getting NDAs from people.  What does appall me is pretending it's not political on the part of the left.

Quote
Quote
I didn't think Beto was accused of Rape, where did you get that?

Once again, I'm going to assume you are implying Kavanaugh.  The elements alleged were for groping, not rape or attempted rape.  Which makes this assertion a bit of lie.

He is accussed of sexual assault, and particularly attempted rape.  I'm not sure how you misremembered them.  The most definitely were not for groping.  She alleges he held her down, forcefully tried to remove her clothes, and convered her mouth when she tried to scream.

Here are her accussations, to be clear

He's not accused of sexual assault, he's not even accused of attempted rape.  The MD law that would have applied -properly charged- would have been for groping.  Claiming it's attempted rape is a lie.

Not to mention "accuse" in the legal sense is about an actual charge which didn't happen here.  Mixing your idioms, so to say, is deceptive.  When you name a specific crime, but apparently mean accuse in a colloquial sense its a bit deceptive.

The way you're stretching the facts, we could plausible charge jay walkers with attempted murder, as they stepped into streets that could have caused cars to swerve and run over people, or attempted suicide on the same grounds. 

Crimes have elements.  They are not present here even if you take every word Ford said as true with respect to attempted rape.

Quote
Ford publicly came forward in a Washington Post story last Sunday; she accused Kavanaugh of forcing himself on her while the two were at a party in high school. She says he pinned her down on a bed, attempted to remove her clothing, and covered her mouth when she tried to scream. Kavanaugh has unequivocally denied these allegations.
Ford says she did not talk about the allegations with anyone until 2012, during a couples therapy session with her husband. She provided the Post with notes from therapy sessions in 2012 and 2013 when she described an attempted rape that she experienced while she was in high school.

Yes, and the portion of the notes from that session contradicted her account in the Senate.  She also withheld actual access to them to the Senate. 

Not sure why you think these are helpful.

Quote
Crunch said that Beto engaged in criminal behavior till his late 20's, the sources I see suggest that he largely ceased involvement with the cDc upon entering college and that his one actual alleged crime (theft of phone service) likely didn't go on after he entered college.

As I pointed out, he committed criminal trespass (charged as burglary) and got his DWI both in his 20s.  As a factual matter what Crunch said on this point was accurate.

Why do we have to have nonsense fights about facts?

Quote
Drunk driving as a teen might or might not be a disqualifier for me (depends on the level of intoxication, circumstances, behavior since).

Again 26 - not a teen.

Quote
Writing *censored*ty fiction as a 15 year old?  Almost definitely not.  Only morons would find that disqualifing (admittedly there are plenty of morons who vote).

I'm flat out calling this for the BS it is.  There is no question that you'd be calling out people you don't think should be in office for writing these kinds of things.

I mean my goodness we just had every Democrat in Congress vote against Neomi Rao after fixating on a piece she wrote in college that was construed as victim blaming (even though it wasn't).  Wait, I guess you're right all the Democratic Senators are morons, but in this they are also hypocrites.

Quote
Quote
Meanwhile, Romney was attacked for an unproven assertion of high school bullyling,

I never heard of Romney being a high school bully - depending on the circumstances probably wouldn't be disqualifying.

National news story for a week during his Presidential run.  Take a look for it.

Quote
Quote
and you won't let anything go on Kavanaugh even though there's no proof and most every assertion was absurd.

There was nothing absurd about the claim of attempted rape.  I think reasonable people can disagree as to how well it was substantiated.  I'd say it was better substantiated than the claim against Clinton and there has been far less time and effort expended to substantiate it.

3 people made claims that could plausibly be rape or attempted rape.  One was Julie Swetnick with her rape trains that were clearly absurd.  One was a sailor who had to retract the nonsense.  And the 3rd was an older woman who didn't even know Kavanaugh that decided to attach her name to anonymous letter.

You had another claim by a drunk woman that saw a penis at a party and decided 20 years later it was Kavanaugh's for no apparent reason.

You had Ford, who I agree was the most rationale of the bunch, who couldn't remember any relevant details that would have identified the event.  Who either lied to the Senate about a fear of flying, or whose lawyers actively deceived the Senate for no legitimate reason.  Who committed a character attack on a public figure while refusing to expose her own character.  Who took a lie detector test that didn't involve direct questions on the event, didn't have a baseline and then refused to share the background.  Whose friend had to effectively refute her claim.  Who didn't mention the events for decades, yet when she did in therapy had a different story than what she told to the Senate.

There's nothing absurd about rape or attempted rape.  There's a ton absurd about the stories that got brought to the Senate, and there's even more absurd about your claims that this was an attempted rape.

Quote
Basically I view typical teen behavior to not really need to be addressed.  I find serious teen behavior outside the norm needing to be addressed.  I think that adults engaging in certain crimes that we might excuse as 'typical teen behavior' to need greater scrutiny.

I agree with this.  However, I think the media whitewashing one side (e.g., Beto) and blowing the other up into things it's not (e.g., Romney) is a terrible manipulation and they should be called on it.

I think we have to differ on what his short story says.  There's no way that finding those kinds of writings on a teens computer wouldn't end up with them in therapy these days, maybe even barred from schools.  Ignoring it is a classic 'warning signs missed' situation.

Quote
I'm not looking to rehash this discussion, see prior discussions if you like for details.  I'm well aware that you don't think the accussations are credible.  I think reasonable people can disagree.  For instance, I think perjury is a pretty good reason that points to credibility.

In what way is there a difference in your head between an "accusation" and a "credible accusation"?

There is literally nothing credible here other than deciding to believe her.  I thought she did a good job testifying.  I honestly believe she believes what she said (with a few exceptions I noted at the time).  That doesn't mean I think she's correct.

Quote
Quote
In fact, its very certain that he didn't perjure himself.

You are free to believe what you will.  I think there is a clear history on this board of me being fairly objective regardless of the political party, whereas you have a tendency to ignore any facts that are unflattering for Republicans, and overstating facts (or ignoring esculpatory facts) that are unflattering to Democrats.\

I don't ignore unflattering facts.  I have a history of disputing that certain things are facts. 

I also have a history of supporting Democrats when they are in the right.  Take a look back at the Benghazi thread, I repeatedly said that it was not legitimate to question Obama's judgment on whether a rescue was feasible or advisable.  That goes along with a history of believing that more of the Democratic policies are indefensible or counterproductive.

Most of what you think of me doing as "overstating" facts or "ignoring them" with respect to Democrats is pointed out the parallel and vastly inconsistent treatment between Republicans and Democrats on the same or similar issues.

Quote
Quote
Again, you make up an allegation and act like it's real.  Do you have some evidence that Trump is a rapist, let alone a serial rapist?  I think there's some people in Congress that'd be interested.

Sure.  I think that Ivanka Trump was definitely raped.  There are other allegations that I think are less strong, but plausible.

You think Ivana was raped, even though she says she wasn't.

Maybe, can't be sure.  It's common in divorces for the party that's seeking to increase their settlement to make allegations that stretch the truth.  It's also common for people after the fact to downplay abuse when it's in their interest.

Quote
Quote
LR why do you keep saying things you have to know are not true?

Do you agree that if Ivana's description was accurate, that lawfullymeets all of the legal elements of rape?

Which description?  The latter one, where she says they had sex but she felt violated because it didn't have their usual emotional connection?

What makes it a rape to you?

Quote
Quote
There were rumors of Broaddrick's story before he was first elected in 1992.  You can go to her Wiki and see that she was talking to people before then and that it even went to the NYT's and LA Times in 1992 but she wouldn't go on record and they dropped (lol, innocent times, not like today where they'd print it before they even spoke to her).  There was even a secret tape of her story. 

There were stories all over the place by his second election.

And she publicly stated that the rumors were false.  I tend to believe alleged victims without strong evidence to refute it.

Care to explain the contradiction then on Ivana versus Broaddrick? 

In any event, only brought up Broadrick because you asserted that the rumors about Clinton were not out there when he was elected.  That's a factual error.  The rumors were out there, else there wouldn't have been a "public denial."   I note, as I said before, there was also a tape of her saying it did happen - and  not in a divorce context where there was a massive financial incentive involved.

Quote
I don't or (didn't) have to ignore anything.  I'm not someone who follows newspapers or TV news, and while I was deeply interested in social policy at that time, I didn't follow politics at all.  I think my first Presidential election vote was for Kerry in 2004.

Okay, so then why make the claim in the first place?

Quote
You may be aware of accussations I'm not.  I've never been particularly interested in or fond of Clinton.  The accussations I've been aware of haven't been credible.

Remember how I mentioned that I point out inconsistencies.  As best I can tell, Ford was credible because she said them out loud and someone couldn't "disprove them" from 30 years ago, even though everyone else "linked" to the event said it didn't happen.

Yet here not credible? 

Quote
Quote
I can't even imagine the mental gymnatistics you're doing to believe that Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist and Clinton is somehow not a rapist.

Personally I think that reasonable people can disagree in both cases.

If Ford had a accused Clinton she'd have been crucified and torn down.  Not one person in America would have believed her. 

If Broadrick's level of detail has been asserted against Kavanaugh, he'd not be on the SC and he'd be off the Circuit Court.  She'd have filed in MD and they'd be making a serious effort to bring him up on charges.

This is what I mean about unequal parallels.  Credibility can not just be  in your mind.

Quote
Quote
We've been through your evidence before.  It's not the hedge words that are the problem it's when you use "perjury" when you mean "you don't like him and wish you could show he lied."

It is amazing how often you conclude that the only reason someone can believe evidence against a Republican is due to their personal feelings towards the individual or their political leanings.

I've asked you for the evidence on this.  I've walked you thru what's "missing" to make it perjury.  Pointed out to you that Congressional investigators have done a deep dive on the exact issue more than once with every reason to pull out all stops to "get him."  That the FBI has been involved more than once.  That in fact  other people did go to jail on the whole stolen memos issue, which means there is in fact a paper trail and serious efforts to prosecute.

After all of that, Kavanaugh did not face any charges for the theft or for perjury.

To assert it is perjury, you are in fact making an incredible leap.  You are asserting that there is "obvious" proof that Democratic operatives with an axe to grind and complete access to the record some how missed, despite really hating him.

Against that background?  Yes I do think your belief is a based on political leanings.

Quote
While I think you are a thoughtful and intelligent man, I don't think you are capable of rational evaluation of evidence when it comes to evaluating politicians that you agree or disagree with.

I have to admit its possible that objectivity is in the eye of the beholder, yet I've still not seen you lay out what makes one charge more credible, than the far more heavily supported ones on the other side.  Or why something is an attempted rape rather than a grope.  Or where the missing proof is on the perjury.

Any or all of those are capable of some level of rational evaluation, less so for what you think credibility is, a lot more so for the proof that K say the stolen memo.  Yet, you don't do it, and you keep asserting the underlying claims as facts, what exactly should I make of that?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on March 20, 2019, 05:42:58 PM
Are you referring to conservative "snowflakes" or liberal "snowflakes" here, Seriati?  Or both types, since they are pretty much the same?
The increased societal norm that one should be shown respect without having any requirement to show respect in return is a curious one to be sure.  It seems to be bipartisan and span all ages and income levels.  While not universal yet, it sure is widespread in the US.

I'm confused by the whole thing about "I deserve respect simply for being me" because it completely destroys the whole concept of what respect is even supposed to be.

You deserve to be treated with basic human dignity as you're a human being.

You deserve to be treated with respect once you've earned the right to be respected for something.

And of course, if you want to be treated respectfully, that also means you should be respecting others as well.

I think that, when people ask to be treated with respect, they mean human dignity.  It's not like people are asking others to bow and scrape just because they are [fill-in the blank]. :)

In this case, they mean the respect that we show each other as human beings.  Not being called names, addressing a person as they would like to be addressed, treating them as one would any other human being.  Nothing extraordinary.

The problem, of course, is that once a person perceives someone else as not granting him that basic human-dignity level of respect, it is hard to give that other person such respect. :(
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 20, 2019, 05:58:13 PM
An awful lot of crime statistics have some give to them. Crimes that are reclassified to make a PD look better. Cities fudging the books to improve their public image. Sometimes a state doesn't provide all the same data, and you can't compare felonies between states because its not consistent. Had the records existed from the 1800's, they wouldn't even have classified killing an Indian for fun to be a crime at all.

Nonetheless, its better than nothing. Hate crimes as reported to the FBI have to meet some basic criteria, it isn't just somebody feeling offended.

This is one of those times when what I'm saying may not be coming across as I mean it.  I absolutely agree that having statistics are better.

My point is that using them to show a trend is problematic.  Do we really think snowflakes today are exposed to more hate crimes than say blacks in the 60s?  Or gays in the 80s?  Or Muslims in the aughts?

Increased sensitivity and increased willingness to label something a hate crime is a confounder on getting a good result about whether there is an impact, and when you see articles say things like "hate crimes" are up x% under Trump they are playing on that statistic anomoly. 

I mean I think one of your quotes implied there are more hate crimes now than after 9/11.  It's possible, I think the country did take an extraodinary brake from hate, but I doubt it's really accurate.  I can't recall a single one of my friends who could be mistaken for Muslim who didn't say they heard something that a snowflake wouldn't construe as a hate.

And Wayward, I'm ecumenical about who the snowflakes actually are.  Statistically though, they are concentrated in our youth, and that aligns more blue than red.

Quote
Of the 8,437 reported hate crime offenses in 2017:

27.6 percent were destruction/damage/vandalism
27.1 percent were intimidation.
20.7 percent were simple assault.
11.7 percent were aggravated assault.
The remaining offenses included additional crimes against persons, property, and society.

The only one that can be explained with "snowflake" is the intimidation part. It is also possible that somebody got punched and racial slurs were thrown around without any actual bias against that group at large.

Actually, most of those could be snowflake crimes.  Vandalism would include someone drawing a swastika on college kid's white board.  Simple assault, one guy grabs another guys butt - its a hate crime if the grabbed guy punches back, (it's an attempted rape and a reasonable defense by the grabbee is female and hits the guy, go figure). 

Aggravated assault depends on whether "hate" gets added just because the victim was in a protected class, or if it only gets added if the attack was because of the protected class.

If a black man is beaten on a subway and we don't know the color of the assailants, is it a hate crime?  What if they were white but got away?  We don't know how that gets recorded, and more importantly we have no idea if it was because of hate.

Quote
So we should do what? Throw up our hands and say the whole thing is unknowable so we should just pretend it doesn't happen, or continues to happen at the same rate as it always did? Or just stop caring about curbing ethnic and religious violence?

What we ought to do is prosecute crimes without regard to race.  It's not a worse crime if a white man beats up a black man because he hates blacks than if a black man beats up a white man because he hates whites.  They are both the same crime and our government should treat them the same.

If we actually have a problem with the racist enforcement of law we should correct it.

But rather than spending time blaming each other for a neverending "legacy of hate" that can't actual be shown, can't be fixed (cause no cure will ever demonstrably be enough) and is more about hurting those with supposed "privledge" than uplifting those without, we ought to go back to what was proven to actual work.  Getting to know each, treating each other with respect and honestly forgiving people when they didn't mean harm. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 06:55:14 PM
Quote
What we ought to do is prosecute crimes without regard to race.  It's not a worse crime if a white man beats up a black man because he hates blacks than if a black man beats up a white man because he hates whites.  They are both the same crime and our government should treat them the same.

I see no reason why they should not be - though I recognize that is largely not the way it is enforced.

The FBI does count hate crimes against white people.

Quote
48.8 percent were motivated by anti-Black or African American bias.
17.5 percent stemmed from anti-White bias.
10.9 percent were classified as anti-Hispanic or Latino bias.

It's quite another thing to say that a racially motivated attack shouldn't be treated differently than a fight over whose football team is better. I'm not sure where you stand on that.

The Civil rights act allows for up to one year imprisonment for intimidating or interfering with someone, and doesn't need an extra crime. This was to stop people from threatening families trying to move into a neighborhood, go to a school, or eat at a restaurant. I'm in favor of that. I think without it we would have a lot more de facto segregated facilities.

When we want to measure Trump's impact, I understand your point. Correlation isn't causation, among other things. In general, there are a lot of things that fall into this category - like the economy is up x% due to Trump. Another statistic might be better to more directly link causation, I don't want to try to come up with one since I don't have the scratch to actually craft a study and gather the data.

For me, the story shouldn't be how Trump encourages such acts, but the easier case to show that he doesn't discourage them as much as other leaders. But then people demand to know if it is having an impact on any actual outcome, or if its just "PC police" and we're back to having to demonstrate a trend.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on March 20, 2019, 11:44:58 PM
Seriati,

Quote
Maybe you should take another look.  The reporter himself said he'd figured out it was Beto, but that neither the group nor Beto would confirm it without the deal.

There is a world of difference between a reporter thinking they know who it is and having sufficient evidence to publish.  There is no possible way that the reporter had enough evidence to publish without confirmation from either other members of cDc or Beto himself.  No paper or reporter would or could have published it - the liability if his guess was wrong was enormous.

Quote
There's less of a world there.  And it's not like we have to speculate about how this would be handled, the media has repeatedly run unconfirmed reports and accusations against Trump.

The legitimate media have never run unsourced reports that I'm aware - they have had sources that have got it wrong - an unsourced report isn't in the same league as an unconfirmed report.  The reporter above would have been publishing a completely unsourced guess (congressman + El Paso Texas would lead me to guess Beto as well, but almost any congressman of the correct age could pontentially have been the actual individual).

Quote
That said, this part doesn't really appall me.  It's no worse or better than Trump getting NDAs from people.  What does appall me is pretending it's not political on the part of the left.

See above, it would be essentially impossible for a reporter to get an unsourced report published.  While he wouldn't need confirmation from Beto, he absolutely would need at least two sources to publish, and he had no sources at all only his own guess.

Quote
He's not accused of sexual assault, he's not even accused of attempted rape.  The MD law that would have applied -properly charged- would have been for groping.  Claiming it's attempted rape is a lie.

Well the Maryland Police and an Maryland prosecutors who deal with rape, and Maryland defense attorney who deals with rape disagree with you,

Quote
The most serious allegation that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape.

There were two laws against attempted rape in Maryland in 1982 and that would be the relevant legal standard.

The charge of attempted rape was considered a misdemeanor at the time. As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor. Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and other longtime Maryland lawyers interviewed in recent days concurred.

The Maryland legislature changed the law in 1996, making attempted rape a felony and removing the statute of limitations, according to McCarthy and Jordan.

“But we’d have to apply the law as it existed at the time of the allegations,” McCarthy said.

A second version of the law — assault with intent to rape — was a felony in the early 1980s, with a 15-year maximum sentence. That law had no statute of limitations, and could be applied to alleged offenses from the early 1980s, according to Brian Shefferman, a longtime defense attorney and former head public defender in Montgomery County.

McCarthy declined to comment about the assault with intent to rape statute.

Other possible charges, such as second-degree assault, remain misdemeanor offenses in Maryland and subject to a one-year statute of limitations, McCarthy said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/amid-the-ford-kavanaugh-exchanges-have-the-local-police-been-asked-to-investigate/2018/09/27/7787d8c0-c297-11e8-a1f0-a4051b6ad114_story.html

So experts familiar with Maryland rape statutes and familiar with Ford's testimony all believe that he could be properly charged with attempted rape.  I think that is persuasive enough for most people, even if you personally don't find it persuasive.

Quote
As I pointed out, he committed criminal trespass (charged as burglary) and got his DWI both in his 20s.  As a factual matter what Crunch said on this point was accurate.

As I said, at the time Crunch seemed to be talking about the telephone and hacking.  I acknowledge that if he meant crimes other than those then I agree - Beto has committed other crimes since entering adulthood - trespass and a DWI.

Quote
Again 26 - not a teen.

I was explaining my theory on "what matters" which should have been clear from the rest of what I wrote.

Quote
I'm flat out calling this for the BS it is.  There is no question that you'd be calling out people you don't think should be in office for writing these kinds of things.

Well you are wrong.  Here is the story, for those interested.

http://textfiles.com/groups/CDC/visions.crusade

It appears to be inspired by American Psycho (Person with evil fantasies, breaks with reality and thinks he commits attrocities that he doesn't actually carry out).  Other than being poorly written and derivative it isn't something that would make me think anything negative about him.  Almost every book and short story I've read that has a horror theme is more disturbing.

I personally wrote two short horror stories in college that are more "disturbing" (and by which I mean not disturbing at all when it comes to horror writing)- "Making the A" - where a student kills a roommate in order to get all A's (based on a rumor I'd heard that if your roommate dies students would get all A's); and "The Model" - where the model for a nude drawing class thinks that an artist is in love with her because his art of her is so good, that the stalks and then kills his fiance.

I really think that anyone who is "disturbed" by the above fiction has serious issues.

Quote
I mean my goodness we just had every Democrat in Congress vote against Neomi Rao after fixating on a piece she wrote in college that was construed as victim blaming (even though it wasn't).  Wait, I guess you're right all the Democratic Senators are morons, but in this they are also hypocrites.

I've no idea who Neomi Rao is (googles) - ah the replacement for Brett Kavanaugh's seat.  There is no reason to think that vote had jack squat to do with the piece she wrote in college.  Given that she was Trump's pick and the quality of jurists he has nominated to the Federal court, it probably has a lot more to do with her judicial philosophy.

Quote
National news story for a week during his Presidential run.  Take a look for it.

Why should I care enough to google it?

Quote
3 people made claims that could plausibly be rape or attempted rape.

Well I was talking about Ford's claim.  While you obviously don't think it was 'attempted rape' - professionals who would be responsible for bringing charges and who defend against such charges and who investigate such charges all disagree with you.  I'm well aware of your view of Ford's testimony, and your view of Kavanaugh's testimony.  You see things differently.  We will simply have to a agree to disagree.

Quote
I agree with this.  However, I think the media whitewashing one side (e.g., Beto) and blowing the other up into things it's not (e.g., Romney) is a terrible manipulation and they should be called on it.

Ok, I googled it.  I think that physical assaults as a teenager are something that absolutely is reflective of adult behavior and should be looked at.  Your characterization of it as "bullying" is odd.  Forcefully cutting someones hair is a pretty serious assault and battery, not far from rape in terms of personal violation and in terms of the type of personality that engages in it - it is very indicative of sadistic psychopathy.

Here is the description of what occured,

Quote
In one, corroborated by five people who witnessed the incident, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is the ringleader of a group that forcibly cuts the hair of an effeminate transfer student. In the other, Romney taunts a closeted gay classmate with a derisive “Atta girl!” when the kid speaks in class. The latter was cruel but hardly eye-popping; the former was, at best, a “senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do,” as one of Romney’s cohorts puts it now. Neither is the kind of mischievous “prank” that Romney’s campaign has cited to dispel talk of the former governor’s wooden personality.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/11/in-defense-of-mitt-romney-high-school-bully/

Quote
I think we have to differ on what his short story says.  There's no way that finding those kinds of writings on a teens computer wouldn't end up with them in therapy these days, maybe even barred from schools.  Ignoring it is a classic 'warning signs missed' situation.

Did you read the story?  It should have been clear that the main character didn't even actually kill anyone, but was hallucinating or otherwise imagining it even though they believed it was real.

Quote
In what way is there a difference in your head between an "accusation" and a "credible accusation"?

The nature of the accusation; the nature of the accuser and the method of the accusation; the nature and behavior of the accused; the supporting evidence and the response of accused to the supporting evidence.

Quote
There is literally nothing credible here other than deciding to believe her.  I thought she did a good job testifying.  I honestly believe she believes what she said (with a few exceptions I noted at the time).  That doesn't mean I think she's correct.

I don't think you know the meaning of the word credible - you establish that she is credible in some respects, just because a witness is credible doesn't mean that they are correct.

Quote
I don't ignore unflattering facts.  I have a history of disputing that certain things are facts.

The fact that the behaviour described is a fact pattern meeting the legal definition of sexual assault - as stated by those with the expertise in MD law to authoritatively state so seems to be a rather important unflattering fact that you are completely ignoring and trying to substitute your own quite novel interpretation.

You also just ignored the unflattering fact that what Romney engaged in as a youth wasn't simply "bullying" but a rather serious assault one with serious implications about his character.

Quote
I also have a history of supporting Democrats when they are in the right.  Take a look back at the Benghazi thread, I repeatedly said that it was not legitimate to question Obama's judgment on whether a rescue was feasible or advisable.  That goes along with a history of believing that more of the Democratic policies are indefensible or counterproductive.

No you don't really have a history of that.  You have quite the opposite history - your position on Benghazi is the exception rather than the rule.

Quote
You think Ivana was raped, even though she says she wasn't.

Maybe, can't be sure.  It's common in divorces for the party that's seeking to increase their settlement to make allegations that stretch the truth.  It's also common for people after the fact to downplay abuse when it's in their interest.

Ivana said that while her statement was factual, she no longer characterizes it as rape.  Factually she was raped - he forced her to have sex against her will.  Her calling it something else now is extremely non-surprising -  she has a non-disparagement clause as part of her divorce settlement - so referring to him as a rapist, unless she is on a witness stand, would potentially cost her 10's of millions of dollars.

Quote
Care to explain the contradiction then on Ivana versus Broaddrick?

Sure.  Ivana testified in her deposition she was raped with plenty of supporting detail.  When not under oath and after a settlement with a non disparagement clause she made a statement not under oath that she no longer characterizes it as rape.  Broaddrick stated under oath that she was not raped.  She changed her statement at a much later date, and the 'witnesses' are all individuals with axes to grind.  I tend to trust statements under oath more than those not under oath.  I tend to distrust statements that have extraordinary personal financial motives attached.

Trump's lawyer, in Trump's defense stated that it wasn't rape because  “You cannot rape your spouse,” he said. “There’s very clear case law.”  Of course there is in fact very clear case law that is quite the opposite - it is rape whether it is a friend, a stranger, or a spouse.  Rape depends on the circumstances surrounding the actions - not the prior relationship between the individuals.

Quote
In any event, only brought up Broadrick because you asserted that the rumors about Clinton were not out there when he was elected.

There weren't any credible rumors, Broadrick had stated unequivocally that it was a false rumor at that time.  At that time she appeared to have no motive to lie, and thus there was no reason to think it was anything other than a malicious rumor.

Quote
That's a factual error.  The rumors were out there, else there wouldn't have been a "public denial."   I note, as I said before, there was also a tape of her saying it did happen - and  not in a divorce context where there was a massive financial incentive involved.

My understanding is that a Yoakum claimed to have such a tape, but no such tape was ever produced, thus in all likelihood it was a bluff.

Quote
Okay, so then why make the claim in the first place?

Why make what claim?

Quote
Remember how I mentioned that I point out inconsistencies.  As best I can tell, Ford was credible because she said them out loud and someone couldn't "disprove them" from 30 years ago, even though everyone else "linked" to the event said it didn't happen.

A big part of the credibility has to do with him perjuring himself.  Innocent people don't usually perjure themselves related events surrounding what they are accused of - especially a judge.  If he had said - "yes I did drink heavily to the point of passing out, as did many teens"  - I'd be more inclined to believe that the rest was truth, but if he was making obvious lies about surrounding details that establishes a great deal of questions about his credibility.

Quote
If Ford had a accused Clinton she'd have been crucified and torn down.  Not one person in America would have believed her.

Highly unlikely.  Accussations against Clinton with far less evidence have been readily believed by Republicans.  If you think that Democrats would have been skeptical - I agree at least at that time, but perhaps not now.

Quote
If Broadrick's level of detail has been asserted against Kavanaugh, he'd not be on the SC and he'd be off the Circuit Court.  She'd have filed in MD and they'd be making a serious effort to bring him up on charges.

Um no.  Broadrick had seriously flawed claims.  The fact that she testified under oath that it never happened being a major hurdle.  Her 'bit lip' detail was contradicted by her husband.  The timeline was found to not work.  There were other issues, but I don't recall them currently.  There is no way Broadrick's allegations could be brought to court in a criminal trial - her prior testimony under oath would immediately establish reasonable doubt.  She had no motivation to lie under oath at that time.

Quote
I've asked you for the evidence on this.  I've walked you thru what's "missing" to make it perjury.  Pointed out to you that Congressional investigators have done a deep dive on the exact issue more than once with every reason to pull out all stops to "get him."  That the FBI has been involved more than once.  That in fact  other people did go to jail on the whole stolen memos issue, which means there is in fact a paper trail and serious efforts to prosecute.

I've responded in the past, I don't plan to rehash it.

Quote
After all of that, Kavanaugh did not face any charges for the theft or for perjury.

To assert it is perjury, you are in fact making an incredible leap.  You are asserting that there is "obvious" proof that Democratic operatives with an axe to grind and complete access to the record some how missed, despite really hating him.

Against that background?  Yes I do think your belief is a based on political leanings.

Ok, you seem to think that unless something has been proven in court "beyond a reasonable doubt" it is improper to believe it true.  I think there is strong evidence, it is unclear whether it would meet the level to prove it in court.  Also some of the evidence only recently came to light.

Quote
I have to admit its possible that objectivity is in the eye of the beholder, yet I've still not seen you lay out what makes one charge more credible, than the far more heavily supported ones on the other side.  Or why something is an attempted rape rather than a grope.  Or where the missing proof is on the perjury.

I think I explained my views on credibility.  Can we at least agree that you were wrong on the grope vs attempted rape?  I won't try and convince you on the other two, but surely you can admit to being wrong on that aspect?  I do freely admit that there might not be sufficient evidence to prosecute Kavanaugh for perjury, even if I am personally convinced that he did so.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 21, 2019, 12:37:11 AM
Quote
National news story for a week during his Presidential run.  Take a look for it.

Why should I care enough to google it?

Here's a hint, that will probably make Google not needed.

Mitt Romney: provider of non-consensual haircuts.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on March 21, 2019, 12:46:01 AM
TheDeamon,

thanks at a later point in my response I did google it, as noted I found it strange to characterize it as 'bullying' - it was a serious assault and battery.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on March 21, 2019, 10:47:45 AM
Quote
What we ought to do is prosecute crimes without regard to race.  It's not a worse crime if a white man beats up a black man because he hates blacks than if a black man beats up a white man because he hates whites.  They are both the same crime and our government should treat them the same.

I see no reason why they should not be - though I recognize that is largely not the way it is enforced.

Largely?  On what basis?  It's the fringes were enforcement is even arguably uneven, not the bulk.  The studies that look at equally situated persons dealing with the police rarely show anything implying that there is a discrepancy, the studies that ignore circumstances do.  What about that screams that unequal is a major part of the problem?

Quote
The FBI does count hate crimes against white people.

But they don't count them in the same way or on the same characteristics.  And they honestly, don't do the counting themselves they rely on thousands of local PDs and other reporters that have their own decision making bias.

For goodness sake, look at the records they don't even have a record of the cause of death for every person that's died because local recorders don't do it correctly. 

Quote
It's quite another thing to say that a racially motivated attack shouldn't be treated differently than a fight over whose football team is better. I'm not sure where you stand on that.

Same place I always stand.  What was the harm caused - level of violence - what was the provocation.  Hate based attacks are completely unprovoked - that in fact is reasonable and that's a factor in how harsh the penalties are in all cases.

But a sucker punch is a sucker punch and it should be punished the same.

Quote
The Civil rights act allows for up to one year imprisonment for intimidating or interfering with someone, and doesn't need an extra crime. This was to stop people from threatening families trying to move into a neighborhood, go to a school, or eat at a restaurant. I'm in favor of that. I think without it we would have a lot more de facto segregated facilities.

But it's totally okay to harrass a Congress persons family in a public restaurant?  Or to go to a television hosts home in the dark and act that way?

Equal Protection - look it up.

Quote
When we want to measure Trump's impact, I understand your point. Correlation isn't causation, among other things. In general, there are a lot of things that fall into this category - like the economy is up x% due to Trump. Another statistic might be better to more directly link causation, I don't want to try to come up with one since I don't have the scratch to actually craft a study and gather the data.

You missed the point actually.  This isn't about correllation versus causation, this is about a trend in increased recording of data that has little to do with whether the underlying events are increasing.

I go out in the woods and notice a green frog.  A few years later I start writing down green frogs - sometimes.  A few years later I start writing them down every time.  My records show, 1 green frog in year zero, none in year 2, 10 in year 3, 15 in year 4, and 275 in year 5.  My trend shows a massive explosion in green frogs in the woods.  But it's not a real trend, its a reporting confidence error.  There may be more green frogs, there may be less, but my data isn't really useful on the point.

Hate crime data is a green frog group.  Take a look, the concept itself keeps changing, the level of willingness to record the concept keeps changing, the individual data entries are not consistent.  And oh yeah, you can find people that discuss this very issue out there.

Quote
For me, the story shouldn't be how Trump encourages such acts, but the easier case to show that he doesn't discourage them as much as other leaders. But then people demand to know if it is having an impact on any actual outcome, or if its just "PC police" and we're back to having to demonstrate a trend.

Whether he "discourages" or "encourages" it is just pure opinion.  He condemns white nationalists and the media refuses to run that quote because they like the ambiguous quote better.  Is that encouragement?

In my view, Obama explicitly played on racial fracture lines, and that was a massive encouragement to hatred.  Is that just as much encouragement?  less?  Probably depends on what you wanted to see in the first place.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 28, 2019, 11:48:55 AM
"Betsy DeVos grilled in Congress over proposed elimination of Special Olympics funding"

They, and Democrats, have obviously cherry-picked a minuscule portion of the budget proposal to fixate upon. Breitbart has chosen not to cover the story at all. More surprising, BBC hasn't picked it up.

looking at the actual budget, Special Education funding is 12 billion dollars, same as last year. There are some subsets, but clearly there is a coherent focus on diminishing federal support of private charities - not only Special Olympics but Hellen Keller National Center.

They put a deep cut on Adult Education state grants, which should have been more of a story than Special Olympics. Of course, like all federal budgets, there's no real consequence here because Congress is just going to ignore it anyway.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on March 28, 2019, 12:21:20 PM
How is the Special Olympics a Department of Education funding item anyway? Sounds like waste, fraud, and abuse to me.

Health and Welfare funding it would be understandable but DoEd? Really?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 02:21:35 PM
So about that media being misleading or making false claims ...

I don't watch Tucker Carlson or any other network pundits unless clips roll through my newsfeed or twitter feed but this clip did catch my eye.

Quote
This past Sunday afternoon, we learned that the Trump campaign did not collude with the government of Russia. That is the conclusion of Robert Mueller’s investigation, which spent two years exhaustively looking into the question. This was very good news for America. We don’t have a spy in the White House. But it was apocalyptic for the Democratic Party and their press agents in the news media. These are the people who’d staked their reputations, and their fortunes, on the collusion hoax. They were stunned. Befuddled politicians stammered on television trying to figure out what to say about the news. Viewers of liberal media outlets didn’t want to hear anything about it. Huge numbers of them quit watching immediately. Last night, CNN’s 8:00 PMshow lost nearly 50 percent of its viewers. For progressive news channels, this was an unsustainable catastrophe. Something had to be done.

Into this metastasizing disaster, stepped the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. On Monday, just hours after the collusion story collapsed, Pelosi announced that the Democratic Party was switching gears. Going forward, Democrats would focus intently on health care — just like, she disingenuously claimed, they always had:

REPORTER: Madam Speaker, did the Republicans help Democrats shift the focus here from the investigations on to health care?

PELOSI: We never took our focus away. I hope it focuses the press on these issues.

So the operative phrase is "I hope it focuses the press on these issues." What happened next?

Quote
Between 7:00 PM and midnightlast night, every show on CNN followed Pelosi’s instructions. Every single one talked about healthcare. Every single one channeled Pelosi’s views on the subject. She could have been writing the scripts.
 

Carlson has the clips and, frankly, it's mindblowing. Saying Pelosi could have written the scripts is a perfect characterization.

Quote
CUOMO: Our President said today that the GOP will be known as the party of healthcare. But it seems to me, he left out a word, based on his Administration's latest move with the ACA.  The President will make his party about REMOVING healthcare.

CUOMO: This President and his party have no plan to provide care to tens of millions if the ACA is gone.

CUOMO: Why? Why? Why? Welcome to the new normal.

Quote
LEMON: The president says the GOP is going to be the party of healthcare. Then why is his Justice Department saying the Affordable Care Act should be struck down?

LEMON: You know, the president has said again and again that he wanted to protect preexisting conditions. Is this yet another lie from the president?

There are many more clips of CNN talking heads saying things like this. It's jawdropping.

Back to Tucker:
Quote
On Pelosi’s orders, it was healthcare week on CNN. They were back at it this morning. Starting at 6:00 AM, every single show on today’s daytime CNN lineup regurgitated Pelosi’s talking points about healthcare

It's incredible that the moment Pelosi uttered that, every single show became about healthcare. Every single one promoted “Republicans will make you sick. Only Democrats can make you well.” Check out the clip (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/28/tucker_carlson_in_24_hours_cnn_went_from_russia_conspiracy_network_to_advertisement_for_obamacare.html), it's clear that Tucker has this nailed.

CNN is literally, in every conceivable way, nothing but a Democrat TV station. Pure propaganda.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on March 28, 2019, 02:40:47 PM
Quote
CNN is literally, in every conceivable way, nothing but a Democrat TV station. Pure propaganda.
And Fox is a GOP TV station and pure propaganda

I recommend avoiding both
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 02:48:51 PM
But what about Fox!!! 

Not really a valid criticism you know ... well, probably is on Quora.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on March 28, 2019, 02:56:56 PM
What other option did they have?  Go on national TV and ask Russia to leak the full unredacted report to them?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on March 28, 2019, 03:04:21 PM
What other option did they have?  Go on national TV and ask Russia to leak the full unredacted report to them?

Russia, if you could please, please, hack the American news networks and give us their unredacted report, I'm sure the American media will be very thankful...um, wait a minute...
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on March 28, 2019, 04:25:10 PM
But what about Fox!!! 

Not really a valid criticism you know ... well, probably is on Quora.

The problem, Crunch, is that you got your information about CNN's behavior from Fox, who might--just might--be a wee bit biased and slanted. ;)  You need to take that into account before spreading criticisms.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on March 28, 2019, 04:37:27 PM
Quote
But what about Fox!!! 
Not really a valid criticism you know ... well, probably is on Quora.

If you parse out the rest of what I posted about avoiding both, then mocking my "criticism" makes sense. As I deplore both Fox and CNN it is not valid.

This is one of the problem of discourse today, we avoid context when it does not suit our argument
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 06:15:19 PM
But what about Fox!!! 

Not really a valid criticism you know ... well, probably is on Quora.

The problem, Crunch, is that you got your information about CNN's behavior from Fox, who might--just might--be a wee bit biased and slanted. ;)  You need to take that into account before spreading criticisms.

Or, you know, you could actually watch the clip and judge for yourself. Knee jerk responses without even trying to understand the issue might just be a wee bit biased as well. Maybe you need to take tgar into account before commenting.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 06:15:59 PM
Quote
But what about Fox!!! 
Not really a valid criticism you know ... well, probably is on Quora.

If you parse out the rest of what I posted about avoiding both, then mocking my "criticism" makes sense. As I deplore both Fox and CNN it is not valid.

This is one of the problem of discourse today, we avoid context when it does not suit our argument

Whataboutism and logical fallacies are the biggest problem.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on March 28, 2019, 06:25:28 PM
But what about Fox!!! 

Not really a valid criticism you know ... well, probably is on Quora.

The problem, Crunch, is that you got your information about CNN's behavior from Fox, who might--just might--be a wee bit biased and slanted. ;)  You need to take that into account before spreading criticisms.

Or, you know, you could actually watch the clip and judge for yourself. Knee jerk responses without even trying to understand the issue might just be a wee bit biased as well. Maybe you need to take tgar into account before commenting.

Sorry, but Sean Hannity is not a reliable source, especially for his "analyses" of other networks.  He is so biased, he has and will lie.  Please provide another source for the information.  Sean isn't worth listening to.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 07:18:50 PM
But what about Fox!!! 

Not really a valid criticism you know ... well, probably is on Quora.

The problem, Crunch, is that you got your information about CNN's behavior from Fox, who might--just might--be a wee bit biased and slanted. ;)  You need to take that into account before spreading criticisms.

Or, you know, you could actually watch the clip and judge for yourself. Knee jerk responses without even trying to understand the issue might just be a wee bit biased as well. Maybe you need to take tgar into account before commenting.


Sorry, but Sean Hannity is not a reliable source, especially for his "analyses" of other networks.  He is so biased, he has and will lie.  Please provide another source for the information.  Sean isn't worth listening to.

And that’s how we know you don’t even have an idea what you’re talking about. Try actually seeing what you’re talking about ... it wasn’t Hannity, not even mentioned or shown in the clip once. Didn’t come from his show. You’re commenting on something you never even saw.

All the clips in it are actually from CNN.

Unbelievable.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 29, 2019, 07:55:33 AM
The only reason to watch any television news is to see weather reporters getting pounded by sleet and wondering if lightning will strike the remote broadcast truck.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on March 29, 2019, 10:47:23 AM
Quote
And that’s how we know you don’t even have an idea what you’re talking about. Try actually seeing what you’re talking about ... it wasn’t Hannity, not even mentioned or shown in the clip once. Didn’t come from his show. You’re commenting on something you never even saw.

All the clips in it are actually from CNN.

Oops.  My mistake.  You mentioned Tucker, not Hannity.  But just about every big-name pundit on Fox is unreliable from what I can see.

And the problem is not that the clips they used aren't accurate.  It's that they are most likely cherry-picked.  How many other clips didn't they use?  Did they put the clips into proper context, or edit them so the person said something different than they were intended, if not the complete opposite of what he actually said?  Conservative pundits love quote mining.  They love cherry-picking.  They play fast and lose with numbers.  So the conclusions they come to are suspect.

Show me a source that isn't know for quote mining and cherry-picking, and I'll take a look.  But if you want me to rely on Fox pundits for information, well, I ain't buying any bridges you want to sell, either.  :P
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on March 29, 2019, 02:23:45 PM
Well, I suppose that makes it easier to stay in your “safe space” and only hear the things that conform to your desires.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on March 29, 2019, 03:45:09 PM
Well, I suppose that makes it easier to stay in your “safe space” and only hear the things that conform to your desires.

No, it just saves time.  People who care about the truth have a hard enough time being accurate all the time.  It would take forever to sift truth from fiction from those who don't give a hoot about being right.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on March 29, 2019, 04:10:26 PM
Well, I suppose that makes it easier to stay in your “safe space” and only hear the things that conform to your desires.

No, it just saves time.  People who care about the truth have a hard enough time being accurate all the time.  It would take forever to sift truth from fiction from those who don't give a hoot about being right.


Sure thing, chief.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on April 01, 2019, 07:58:24 AM
From AP:
Quote
O'Rourke also spoke at length in his native Spanish, eliciting loud and sustained cheers.

When this blew up on social media, AP corrected the story without noting any change. However, there were screen captures and other outlets using the story so it wasn’t fully memory holed.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 01, 2019, 08:02:25 AM
AP: “Beto spoke in his native Spanish”

https://i.ibb.co/fXh12r4/58273438-AF6-B-4-FE3-BC35-3648455-EBFF9.jpg

They've corrected it not but only because they got caught. What is it with pushing this guy as Hispanic? I'm probably more Hispanic than he is. I have a DNA test that says 2% of my ancestry is from the Iberian peninsula. He probably beats me in Irish DNA though and I'm sitting pretty at well over 50%. I wonder if he'd be willing to go the Warren route and take a DNA test. In Beto's defense, if she can claim Native American Ancestry with about 1% of the DNA for it he may well be Hispanic by the same measure. If he's anything like me he may well be twice as Hispanic as she is Native American.

Edited to add: Dagnabbit, beat me by "that" much.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2019, 09:08:40 AM
Maybe his Spanish is just that good that they thought he was a native speaker? More likely this is sloppy journalism rather than some deliberate attempt to pretend that he's hispanic. He definitely hangs a lot on the support of the hispanic community, many articles do talk about that quite a bit.

No Illuminati worth their salt would put out such a blatant statement and expect not to get taken down in precisely the way it just happened. I can't imagine that whether he's a native speaker or not would generate more support for him.

Speaking Spanish was a big deal curing the Senate race. O'Rourke challenged Cruz to a debate in Spanish. Cruz declined. This highlighted the difference between heritage (Cruz) and relating to the community (O'Rourke). That wasn't an original move, Dewhurst made the same challenge to Cruz in 2012.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 12:16:16 PM
What other option did they have?  Go on national TV and ask Russia to leak the full unredacted report to them?

Honestly, they could have followed the story.  Somehow, they got 2 years of fake coverage.  They had secret sources that fed them that.  Sounds like they have a massive tale of corruption, they could expose.

Unless of course you're conceding that the corruption is at CNN?  Or that their politics should be more important than their commitment to the news?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 12:18:52 PM
But what about Fox!!! 

Not really a valid criticism you know ... well, probably is on Quora.

The problem, Crunch, is that you got your information about CNN's behavior from Fox, who might--just might--be a wee bit biased and slanted. ;)  You need to take that into account before spreading criticisms.

Are you disputing the time line?  In what way is the source - Fox - relevant to the facts here?  Pelosi said turn to HealthCare, every CNN segment turned to healthcare (and heavily from the Democratic perspective).  I mean it's not like they covered it as actual news, or even as a policy debate where they tried to present the arguments supporting changes.

I'm really offended by this response Wayward.  Are you seriously not even looking at facts anymore?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 12:22:31 PM
Their option was to double down on collusion or find something else to pivot to fast. 

This could be seen as her pulling their strings.  Or, she could have tossed them a life-line... 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 12:23:59 PM
And the problem is not that the clips they used aren't accurate.  It's that they are most likely cherry-picked.  How many other clips didn't they use?

Are you kidding?  You're defending CNN by accusing Fox of Cherry Picking?  Do you even watch cable news?  Fox has more people on the left on regularly and respectfully than CNN and MSNBC have people on the right - combined.

CNN tells you that Trump won't condemn white nationalists, even though they have clips of him doing exactly that from speeches that they show other clips?

Quote
Did they put the clips into proper context, or edit them so the person said something different than they were intended, if not the complete opposite of what he actually said?  Conservative pundits love quote mining.  They love cherry-picking.  They play fast and lose with numbers.  So the conclusions they come to are suspect.

So prove it.  You're standing in dirty waters when you're standing with the MSM. 

You know what skip it.  I don't believe you've actually reached this conclusion on your own from observation anyway, it's a meme or a talking point you've heard to be repeated to address actual and legitimate criticism of the media.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 12:27:15 PM
Their option was to double down on collusion or find something else to pivot to fast. 

This could be seen as her pulling their strings.  Or, she could have tossed them a life-line...

D.W., I'm sorry, but they had the option, still do, to actually report the news.  There's a huge story here around how this investigation got started and how we all came to believe so many things with so little support.

The only reason their choices would be limited as you describe is if they are not really media, but are just propaganda outlets.  Are you saying they are just DNC propaganda outlets?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 12:49:37 PM
Quote
D.W., I'm sorry, but they had the option, still do, to actually report the news.  There's a huge story here around how this investigation got started and how we all came to believe so many things with so little support.
I gotta disagree, strongly.  Their best play is to wait.  Not double down, not apologize, not voice outrage of how they were "tricked". 

Once we've seen the full report (or as much of it as we seem like to ever see), THEN they would go down the road you outline.  IF that is what seems warranted. 

That they should abandon one narrative for another doesn't seem the proper course until they have actual news to report. 

Quote
Are you saying they are just DNC propaganda outlets?
And no, I'm not saying that.  Though I don't watch enough of any one channel to make that determination.  I tend to get my news from a hodgepodge of different outlets.  The only thing I listen to regularly is NPR as an alarm clock radio...  The rest is all from online algorithmicly funneled and processed.  :P

If nothing else, the perception was The Media, had its eye blackened.  The last thing they would do is to draw attention to it until they were positive it was time to issue a retraction.  That they could have covered anything else is a valid criticism.  That they should have taken the course you suggested is absurd.  From a business standpoint if nothing else. 

FWIW, all that we see as "propaganda" today tends to just be market driven pandering.  There may be a feedback loop effect going on that leaves little difference between propaganda and info-tainment, but I think that we see partisan broadcasting on both sides as the indicator there IS a difference. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2019, 01:36:15 PM
Transcript of Carlson's bit (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/28/tucker_carlson_in_24_hours_cnn_went_from_russia_conspiracy_network_to_advertisement_for_obamacare.html)

I would say Trump's action initiated this news cycle. His justice department made it clear at that time that they were going to do their best to let ACA get invalidated. Not just the portions that were being challenged - all of it.

Quote
On Pelosi’s orders, it was healthcare week on CNN. They were back at it this morning. Starting at 6:00 AM, every single show on today’s daytime CNN lineup regurgitated Pelosi’s talking points about healthcare

So the news that day should not have been about healthcare after the administration said that ACA should be wiped out? Pelosi certainly did shrewdly take advantage of this, but didn't Trump actually change the national narrative with his DOJ memo?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on April 01, 2019, 02:31:33 PM
"Betsy DeVos grilled in Congress over proposed elimination of Special Olympics funding"

Quote
The federal government isn’t cutting its funding for the Special Olympics, but New York State is, according to its budget.

New York’s budget for the Special Olympics decreased from $200,000 in 2018 to $150,000 for this year. Meanwhile, every one of the state’s 213 lawmakers will ultimately receive a raise that is almost the same amount cut from the games for disabled athletes.


2019 is such a weird year.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on April 01, 2019, 04:36:11 PM
Honestly, they could have followed the story.  Somehow, they got 2 years of fake coverage.

We will have to wait for the report (and hearings) to determine what was found, and what conclusions were reached and why.  Concluding that there was any significant 'fake coverage' seems premature at this time.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 04:39:41 PM
We don't have to wait for the report or the hearings.  The coverage is fake unless it had a factual basis.  We now know it did not, that it could not and that most of the politicians that went on tv were either lying or stating baseless claims, that most of the media either had no sources or are deliberately protecting sources that they now know lied to them.

What more evidence do you need?  Show us some proof that any of the baseless claims made were legitimate.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on April 01, 2019, 04:55:49 PM
We don't have to wait for the report or the hearings.  The coverage is fake unless it had a factual basis.  We now know it did not, that it could not and that most of the politicians that went on tv were either lying or stating baseless claims, that most of the media either had no sources or are deliberately protecting sources that they now know lied to them.

What more evidence do you need?  Show us some proof that any of the baseless claims made were legitimate.

I'm not sure what 'baseless' claims you are referring to and which particular lies that you think the sources told.  If you are referring to claims that Trump's campaign engaged in behaviour that would qualify as "conspiracy against the united states" (collusion) or that Trump engaged in behavior that would qualify as "obstruction of justice" - as far as I'm aware there is nothing contradicting any specifics that have been alleged.  If any specific allegation is contradicted then certainly there should be an apology if there is any serious factual error.

However, until we have the report and testimony - we don't have any allegation or evidence of any specific factual error that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on April 02, 2019, 03:07:14 PM
And the problem is not that the clips they used aren't accurate.  It's that they are most likely cherry-picked.  How many other clips didn't they use?

Are you kidding?  You're defending CNN by accusing Fox of Cherry Picking?  Do you even watch cable news?  Fox has more people on the left on regularly and respectfully than CNN and MSNBC have people on the right - combined.

First off, I'm not "defending" CNN.  I'm simply disregarding the opinion/conclusion from Tucker's show.  I asked for other sources.  Are you saying you believe everything that Tucker says without checking on it?  ???

Second, who cares how many people on the Left Fox opinion shows have?  That has no influence on cherry picking and quote mining.  Sure, IF they ask the Left guest about the segment and IF he/she is knowledgeable about the subject, then MAYBE he will challenge the conclusion.  But did this happen in this instance?   Do I really need to look? ;)

Quote
CNN tells you that Trump won't condemn white nationalists, even though they have clips of him doing exactly that from speeches that they show other clips?

So what?  I'm not saying CNN never cherry-picks.  And if Tucker shows a clip of CNN saying Trump won't condemn white nationalists, and then shows a clip of Trump condemning white nationalists, I will agree with Tucker on that.

But with something like CNN doing the DNC's bidding for purely political reasons--well, that's the kind of smear that I expect from the Fox pundits.  Sounds reasonable, with plenty of clips you can show, but could ignore other reasons for them doing so, or any number of reports at the same time about Mueller's report that aired at the same time.

Just about any story the Fox pundits give about what Democrats and the Main Stream Media is like is suspect, and should be verified by a better source before believed. 

Quote
Quote
Did they put the clips into proper context, or edit them so the person said something different than they were intended, if not the complete opposite of what he actually said?  Conservative pundits love quote mining.  They love cherry-picking.  They play fast and lose with numbers.  So the conclusions they come to are suspect.

So prove it.  You're standing in dirty waters when you're standing with the MSM.

As I said, I'm not standing with the MSM.  I just know better than to blindly believe Fox pundits.

Quote
You know what skip it.  I don't believe you've actually reached this conclusion on your own from observation anyway, it's a meme or a talking point you've heard to be repeated to address actual and legitimate criticism of the media.

When from your own observations you know that these guys lie, you don't need memes or talking points to confirm it.  Just common sense.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2019, 03:44:30 PM
Quote
CNN tells you that Trump won't condemn white nationalists, even though they have clips of him doing exactly that from speeches that they show other clips?

First of all, that has been true on several occasions. And then he's strongly disavowed at other times. There shouldn't really be any clips of a person not responding with firm serious intent when the topic comes up. A really decent news organisation would show both kinds back-to-back and then have a discussion about it.

Maybe "Sometimes Trump doesn't strongly condemn white nationalists"?

Even an unfriendly news organization can't cobble together clips of Hillary failing to condemn white nationalists.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 02, 2019, 03:50:13 PM
CNN tells you that Trump won't condemn white nationalists, even though they have clips of him doing exactly that from speeches that they show other clips?

So what?  I'm not saying CNN never cherry-picks.  And if Tucker shows a clip of CNN saying Trump won't condemn white nationalists, and then shows a clip of Trump condemning white nationalists, I will agree with Tucker on that.

Just for fun.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/politics/trump-charlottesville-statement/index.html

Quote
This is what the President of the United States said about it:
"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. This has been going on for a long, long time."

It's hard to imagine a less presidential statement in a time in which the country looks to its elected leader to stand up against intolerance and hatred.

But here's where the cherry picking happens, kind of like with "Russia, if you're listening?"

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138906/president-trump-remarks-condemning-violence-on-many-sides-charlottesville-rally

Quote
They're great people. Great people. But we're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America. What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives. No citizen should ever fear for their safety and security in our society. And no child should ever be afraid to go outside and play or be with their parents and have a good time.

. . .

Above all else, we must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first. We love our country. We love our god.

We love our flag. We're proud of our country. We're proud of who we are, so we want to get the situation straightened out in Charlottesville, and we want to study it. And we want to see what we're doing wrong as a country where things like this can happen. My administration is restoring the sacred bonds of loyalty between this nation and its citizens, but our citizens must also restore the bonds of trust and loyalty between one another. We must love each other, respect each other and cherish our history and our future together. So important. We have to respect each other. Ideally, we have to love each other.

So very, very "unpresidential," devisive, and so totally giving White Supremacists the green light to "carry on, business as usual" with that speech. He might as well been wearing a white bed sheet while delivering it.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2019, 05:39:31 PM
What’s weird is the incredible effort put into holding on to the fiction around Trump but Ralph Northam is all cool.

Trump won’t comdemn white nationalsts!! False. Doesn’t matter how many times you show h8, doing it, the left insists he didn’t.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on April 03, 2019, 12:02:03 PM
OK I just stumbled over one.  "Trump claims sound from windmills* causes cancer."

*meaning wind turbines.

Now the clip, to me at least, seemed to indicated it was cropped out, and that he was referring to what someone else told him.  At one point in the short clip you hear people laugh. 

So was he telling a joke?  Mocking someone who told him this absurd thing?  Or does he deserve this current round of mocking for "yet again" being hopelessly deficient in his grasp of science?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 03, 2019, 12:58:46 PM
I'm guessing he has regurgitated the talking point about "wind farm syndrome". People spouting these conspiracy theories talk about cancer on occasion. He has a history of disparaging wind farms for any reason he can get his hands on.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on April 03, 2019, 01:30:40 PM
OK I just stumbled over one.  "Trump claims sound from windmills* causes cancer."

*meaning wind turbines.

Now the clip, to me at least, seemed to indicated it was cropped out, and that he was referring to what someone else told him.  At one point in the short clip you hear people laugh. 

So was he telling a joke?  Mocking someone who told him this absurd thing?  Or does he deserve this current round of mocking for "yet again" being hopelessly deficient in his grasp of science?

I assume he was joking, watching the video he strings together sound effects and comments about a bird cemetery. It sounds like he was just throwing out escalating and more ridiculous goofs. reeer, reeeer, reeer, your property values go down, birds die en masse, your ear balls get cancer.

But, maybe he's not joking. I think we covered how anything Trump says cannot ever be a joke. It's unpossible. I'll wait to see what the kids on Quora think.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on April 03, 2019, 01:37:41 PM
Such a inspiring leader!
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on April 03, 2019, 01:47:54 PM
Such a inspiring leader!

Yeah, well, it's a mixed bag for sure.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 03, 2019, 01:51:31 PM
I'll just jump in here as Trump's designated water carrier and mention that if the wind turbines cause disrupted and inadequate sleep for some people, and I just checked on the internet to make sure, and it told me that lack of sleep can be a factor in developing cancer. Now I for one absolutely love wind turbines as long as they are NIMBY.

On another story that just jumped out from the internet the headline says: "Trump Can’t Stop Reminding Everyone That He Doesn’t Care About Puerto Rico."

I'm going to say that's false and misleading. Pointing out the faults of the government down there doesn't mean he doesn't care. Some would say that pointing out faults means you do care, for instance when people point them out in our own government.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/trump-t-stop-reminding-everyone-191442987.html

Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on April 03, 2019, 01:53:58 PM
In the same speech:
Quote
Trump says he went in for a kiss on a general after ISIS was destroyed and he “felt like Joe Biden.”

Obviously, Trump is essentially doing a stand-up routine. I get it, it's not cool for him to have fun, tell stupid jokes, and ridicule people. But if anyone wants to take his joking seriously, that's on you.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: D.W. on April 03, 2019, 02:31:27 PM
Was curious if anyone had watched the whole thing.  It did strike me as him telling a joke, or mocking someone and the piece I read, (really just a hodgepodge of tweets) was framing it as a stupid thing HE said. 

As I am often floored by some of the head scratchers Trump floats, it didn't seem impossible by any stretch that they were HIS views, but that this was an equally stupid smear seemed just as likely.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 03, 2019, 02:36:58 PM
Quote
Obviously, Trump is essentially doing a stand-up routine. I get it, it's not cool for him to have fun, tell stupid jokes, and ridicule people. But if anyone wants to take his joking seriously, that's on you.

I prefer my politicians to use wry wit and subtle sarcasm rather than insult humor and shock-jock jokes.

I like Dave Attell's jokes, but I wouldn't elect him. I don't want my President to be edgy and outrageous.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 03, 2019, 02:49:42 PM
Best I can see is that Trump really got mad about Windmills in the views of his luxury resorts and pretty much forwarded anything and everything that made them look bad.  Not very honorable, and certainly contributed to the spread of false claims.

No idea though if he really believes it, or what the basis for such a belief would be.  Fun with statistics makes it possible much like how 62 storm related deaths became 3000 in Puerto Rico (it was based on a change in death rates, not on any objective tie in to the storm), probably possible to connect a cancer rate change somewhere with an increase in wind power.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on April 03, 2019, 02:50:24 PM
Quote
It did strike me as him telling a joke, or mocking someone and the piece

At its core the issue behind Trumps jokes as shot at the concept of green energy. 
Its brilliant as his 'jokes' derail any real meaningful debate which works in his favor.

Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 03, 2019, 02:53:59 PM
Quote
I just checked on the internet to make sure, and it told me that lack of sleep can be a factor in developing cancer. Now I for one absolutely love wind turbines as long as they are NIMBY.

There were a couple of studies on this. It's quite tenuous. The noise factor has been used for some legislation in Canada requiring a certain set back. The SPL at 300 meters is about 43dB, which is roughly the noise level of a refrigerator, or the sound of wind through the trees at 10MPH.

One of the studies found that reports of noise correlated more closely with media reports about it than proximity to the wind farms themselves. Very rural residents (where wind farms crop up) may well actually hear this - and the studies find that the noise it self isn't enough to keep someone awake, they found that it was the anger at hearing it that tended to disrupt sleep.

If 40dB of noise was causing cancer, that's a lot of cancer.

Meanwhile you know what does cause cancer? Air pollution, like the kind generated by a coal plant.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 04, 2019, 12:24:35 PM
CNN tells you that Trump won't condemn white nationalists, even though they have clips of him doing exactly that from speeches that they show other clips?

More timely pieces, this time from Larry Elder's most recent essay

Quote
In his widely misquoted press conference three days after Charlottesville, Trump said there were "very fine people" on "both sides" of the issue of whether it is appropriate to display Confederate monuments in pubic locations. Here is what Trump said: "Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, 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." In case there was any doubt, Trump, in response to another question, said, "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" (emphasis added).

https://www.creators.com/read/larry-elder/04/19/the-trump-charlottesville-moral-equivalency-lie-the-left-keeps-telling (https://www.creators.com/read/larry-elder/04/19/the-trump-charlottesville-moral-equivalency-lie-the-left-keeps-telling)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 12:45:36 PM
It was a Unite the Right rally. It was organized by white nationalist Richard Spencer. There are no very fine people who show up to a rally like that, with people chanting white supremacy slogans. If you are marching around with white supremacists, you are pretty much a white supremacist. So Trump failed to acknowledge that simple fact, and tried to manufacture a bunch of nice people who just like statues. He makes it sound like there were just a handful of neo-Nazis and they are the ones who should be condemned.

In truth, attendees were a who's who of supremacists. See if you can spot a very fine person in there.

Among the far-right groups engaged in organizing the march were the Stormer Book Clubs (SBCs) of the neo-Nazi news website The Daily Stormer,[50] The Right Stuff,[51] the National Policy Institute,[52] and four groups that form the Nationalist Front:[49] the neo-Confederate League of the South,[49] the neo-Nazi groups Traditionalist Worker Party,[53] Vanguard America,[53] and the National Socialist Movement.[49] Other groups involved in the rally were the Ku Klux Klan (specifically the Loyal White Knights and the Confederate White Knights branches)[54] ,[21] the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights,[53] the American Identitarian group Identity Evropa,[55] the Southern California-based fight club Rise Above Movement,[56][57] the American Guard,[19] the Detroit Right Wings – misappropriating the name of the Detroit Red Wings NHL team, which usage was condemned by the team,[58][59] True Cascadia,[60] the Canadian-based ARM (Alt-Right Montreal) and Hammer Brothers,[61] and Anti-Communist Action.[19]

Prominent far-right figures in attendance included National Policy Institute Chairman and white supremacist Richard Spencer,[62] entertainer and internet troll Baked Alaska,[62] former Libertarian Party candidate Augustus Invictus,[63] former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke,[64] Identity Evropa leader Nathan Damigo,[65] Traditionalist Workers Party leader Matthew Heimbach,[62] Right Stuff founder Mike Enoch,[62] Eric Striker of The Daily Stormer,[66] League of the South founder and leader Michael Hill,[9] Red Ice host and founder Henrik Palmgren,[67] The Rebel Media commentator Faith Goldy,[68] Right Side Broadcasting Network host Nick Fuentes,[69] YouTube personality James Allsup,[69] AltRight.com editor Daniel Friberg,[70] former Business Insider CTO Pax Dickinson,[71] Right Stuff blogger Johnny Monoxide,[72] Daily Stormer writers Robert "Azzmador" Ray and Gabriel "Zeiger" Sohier-Chaput,[73] Daily Caller contributor and rally organizer Jason Kessler,[74] and Radical Agenda host Christopher Cantwell.[75][76]
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 04, 2019, 01:42:35 PM
Didn't dispute that there were Alt-Right crazies there.  What does that have to do with what Trump said.  He was absolutely clear he that the "sides" were those that are in favor of tearing down Confederate statues and those that are not.  That latter group is much larger that the Alt-Right crazies.  Real time accounts implied that there were people there that were not part of the Alt-Right crazies.

Do you have something more definitive that says there were not?  Or are you just doubling down on a strawman?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 04, 2019, 01:45:03 PM
Maybe to most of the left anyone who doesn't want to tear down old Confederate statues is a white supremacist and pure evil. To at least some of them that goes for anyone wearing a MAGA hat too.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 04, 2019, 02:34:31 PM
It was a Unite the Right rally. It was organized by white nationalist Richard Spencer. There are no very fine people who show up to a rally like that, with people chanting white supremacy slogans.

I don't know much about the demographics, but you are certain that of all persons attending that rally, they were at least a majority white supremacists? And note that while I sympathize with the idea of finding bad company odious and therefore staying away from them, I also find it odious to automatically assume guilt by association.

Quote
If you are marching around with white supremacists, you are pretty much a white supremacist.

This is the line of thinking that scares me. The rally was a protest *against* a certain course of action, not for a certain course of action. When protesting to put a stop to something you're always going to have a coalition. I'm sure Occupy Wall Street was composed of various kinds of people, some of whom were extremely odious, but I wouldn't want to begin calling anyone involved a commie-hippy. Likewise, when there is a limited timeframe and one big rally against something you want to oppose, while it's true that you can choose to avoid attending because of who else is there, it also means you're giving up the chance for your speech on the subject to be heard since a big rally is where it's at.

Quote
So Trump failed to acknowledge that simple fact, and tried to manufacture a bunch of nice people who just like statues. He makes it sound like there were just a handful of neo-Nazis and they are the ones who should be condemned.

Are you entirely sure he's wrong, by the sheer numbers? I don't actually know, but I'm asking if you definitely do.

Quote
In truth, attendees were a who's who of supremacists. See if you can spot a very fine person in there.

Even assuming that the majority were an unlikeable sort and those who would march with them suspect by association, don't you think that there's a certain...shall we say...diplomatic element to not dismissing an entire movement out of hand and calling them a bunch of Nazis wholesale? In other words what's the advantage of saying "to hell with all of them", verus "to hell with the white supremacists among them, but we will pay due respect to those who were there to oppose it for other reasons"? Isn't diplomacy the thing everyone wants from Trump? It seems in this case making a more specific comment than his usual sweeping statement became ground to either cut and paste his statement to exclude the relevant part, or else to condemn him for not making a wild sweeping statement. You do see the irony in this, no?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 02:57:47 PM
No, I understand that he tried to draw a distinction. One that didn't exist. They were all Alt-Right crazies or people who were fine with Alt-Right crazies. If you write a letter to the editor about not tearing down a statue, you're not in that group. If you contact your mayor, you're not in that group. If you're marching around with a tiki torch while a speaker talks about preserving your white heritage, you are in that group.

Was everyone there a card carrying white nationalist? No. Was everyone there a lunatic from a compound waiting for the race war to begin? No. But they didn't mind being pals with those guys, and they loved cheering for their speeches. At best they were misguided, normally okay people, but never very fine.

To me, his distinction is moot. He wasn't talking about people on both sides of the argument, he was talking about people on both sides of the protest in Charlottesville that day. The meme was about "very fine people" but if you bother to look up the news articles, there's always context about it.

Quote
“You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible,” he said. “And it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left — that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.”

This glosses over the question that his first statement raised, though, which was how he felt about the far-right and racist groups that spurred the demonstration in the first place. Those who engaged in violence on Saturday were certainly culpable, but the looming question was whether Trump felt that Nazis and people protesting those Nazis were otherwise equivalent. Such equivalence would suggest that racism and an embrace of Adolf Hitler have a place in America’s political conversation.

Trump gave every indication that he thought that equivalence existed.

“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis,” he said. “I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee.”

That torchlight rally on Friday night, when protesters gave the Nazi salute, chanted “blood and soil” — a Nazi slogan — and “Jews will not replace us”?

“I looked the night before,” Trump said. “If you look, they 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. … But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know — I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit.”

Both sides, he said, had some “very fine people” participating Saturday.

That, from the washington post, didn't leave out his context. Do you find it misleading?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 03:00:00 PM
Quote
I'm sure Occupy Wall Street was composed of various kinds of people, some of whom were extremely odious, but I wouldn't want to begin calling anyone involved a commie-hippy.

Occupy did, and most things do. There were probably some racists in the park too. But they weren't organizers and spokespeople.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 04, 2019, 03:12:25 PM
That, from the washington post, didn't leave out his context. Do you find it misleading?

To be honest, yeah. The editorialized line about Trump drawing an "equivalence" between neo-Nazis and counter-protesters does create a very skewed and spun interpretation of his comments.

That being said, I find it hard to believe you can be so certain that most or all of the people there were happy with alt-right crazies. That wasn't the impression I got when reading about the event myself, but then again I didn't research it in very fine detail, nor do I clearly remember the photos of the event to be able to say what sorts of people (visually) seemed to be present. But my impression from the event was, at the time, that the presence of *some* white supremacists was being used to paint and tar the entire group, which seems to also be what Trump is saying.

As a side note, if your quibble is with Trump drawing an 'equivalency' then perhaps your beef could just as soon be that in suggesting there were "very good" people on both sides, that the objectionable part of this might have been that there were good people on the counter-protest side. Maybe you are right, in that there were no good people *on either side*. After all, if the standard is going to be guilt by association (for argument's sake) then I don't see how the same doesn't apply to those counter-protesting right alongside those from Antifa sporting the German communist flags. If you are fairly sure that all the protesters were ne'er-do-wells, would you then argue the same about the other side, and conclude that everyone involved was a problem?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 03:41:07 PM
Again, its about mass. If there are 50% of people running around in black ski masks swinging tire irons, then you can lump the other 50 in with them, especially if they are the guys on the posters and websites promoting the event. Now I'll admit, it is possible that all the photos are selected to make sure they find the isolated cluster of nazis. Also, they are naturally going to select action photos, which are going to show more antifa/nazi confrontation. But the wider angle pictures of Duke speaking is sprinkled around with people giving Heil Hitler salutes and people surrounding them completely unfazed by it.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2019, 04:43:14 PM
Didn't dispute that there were Alt-Right crazies there.  What does that have to do with what Trump said.  He was absolutely clear he that the "sides" were those that are in favor of tearing down Confederate statues and those that are not.  That latter group is much larger that the Alt-Right crazies.  Real time accounts implied that there were people there that were not part of the Alt-Right crazies.

Do you have something more definitive that says there were not?  Or are you just doubling down on a strawman?

He is also "conveniently" forgetting that by all accounts, Anti-Fa was present at that rally as well. And they DO qualify for triggering a "on many sides" mention.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2019, 04:47:44 PM
No, I understand that he tried to draw a distinction. One that didn't exist. They were all Alt-Right crazies or people who were fine with Alt-Right crazies. If you write a letter to the editor about not tearing down a statue, you're not in that group. If you contact your mayor, you're not in that group. If you're marching around with a tiki torch while a speaker talks about preserving your white heritage, you are in that group.

Was everyone there a card carrying white nationalist? No. Was everyone there a lunatic from a compound waiting for the race war to begin? No. But they didn't mind being pals with those guys, and they loved cheering for their speeches. At best they were misguided, normally okay people, but never very fine.

To me, his distinction is moot. He wasn't talking about people on both sides of the argument, he was talking about people on both sides of the protest in Charlottesville that day. The meme was about "very fine people" but if you bother to look up the news articles, there's always context about it.

Quote
“You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible,” he said. “And it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left — that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.”

This glosses over the question that his first statement raised, though, which was how he felt about the far-right and racist groups that spurred the demonstration in the first place. Those who engaged in violence on Saturday were certainly culpable, but the looming question was whether Trump felt that Nazis and people protesting those Nazis were otherwise equivalent. Such equivalence would suggest that racism and an embrace of Adolf Hitler have a place in America’s political conversation.

Trump gave every indication that he thought that equivalence existed.

“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis,” he said. “I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee.”

That torchlight rally on Friday night, when protesters gave the Nazi salute, chanted “blood and soil” — a Nazi slogan — and “Jews will not replace us”?

“I looked the night before,” Trump said. “If you look, they 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. … But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know — I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit.”

Both sides, he said, had some “very fine people” participating Saturday.

That, from the washington post, didn't leave out his context. Do you find it misleading?

Uh, the initial "both sides" quote, in FULL context is linked to, by me, in post 293 (page 6) on this very thread. I quoted back a significant portion of those remarks in the same post.

Now go back and check to see how closely what you quoted matches up with what Trump said initially. Trump's response to the media response taking him out of context is another matter.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 04:50:36 PM
nope. didn't forget at all. I've already written about it. The media wrote about it. There were pictures. Is a grapefruit equivalent to a grape? It depends. They are both fruits, but one is a lot bigger. The fact that opinion pieces rejected the argument doesn't make them false.

Also, if Antifa, whom I've never defended, had no opposition, they'd melt away. If the white power people had no opposition they'd create a system of apartheid at best, genocide at worst. There are many other ways in which you can draw a clear difference.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2019, 04:58:25 PM
Again, its about mass. If there are 50% of people running around in black ski masks swinging tire irons, then you can lump the other 50 in with them, especially if they are the guys on the posters and websites promoting the event. Now I'll admit, it is possible that all the photos are selected to make sure they find the isolated cluster of nazis. Also, they are naturally going to select action photos, which are going to show more antifa/nazi confrontation. But the wider angle pictures of Duke speaking is sprinkled around with people giving Heil Hitler salutes and people surrounding them completely unfazed by it.

Keeping things in context, the rally was called off, which culminated in the violent use of an automobile, because public officials felt they couldn't guarantee the safety of the public, due to actions on the part of Anti-Fa and other associated groups that were looking to violently oppose the Neo-Nazi rally.

Keeping in mind that White Supremacist/Neo-Nazi Rallies had previously had a decades long history of being tense, but otherwise peaceful.

It takes two sides to make things escalate like that, it doesn't happen unless there is a "both/many sides" component present, and there quite obviously was one in play that day. Unless you're also saying Anti-Fa is a right-Wing extremist group just like the Neo-Nazis.

Which in all reality, I wouldn't disagree with on overly much, other than identifying the Neo-Nazi's (or anti-fa) as "right wing." As those groups do NOT properly exist on the "right hand side" of the American Political spectrum, at all.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2019, 04:59:59 PM
Also, if Antifa, whom I've never defended, had no opposition, they'd melt away. If the white power people had no opposition they'd create a system of apartheid at best, genocide at worst. There are many other ways in which you can draw a clear difference.

I wish I could believe that. I don't. Anti-Fa is here, and it's here to stay. They'll just change the definition of "fascist" as it suits their needs, they already did that to start with, why wouldn't they do so again?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 05:06:21 PM
There was only one side that was heavily armed. And again and again. To lay this at the doorstep of anti-fa, as Trump did, is very much newsworthy. Nazis have a right to protest. But nobody should be saying they and their buddies are fine people. Previously, everybody understood that and they were widely condemned as a joke. The rise of the alt-right into mainstream consciousness frightened some people. I don't defend Anti-fa, never have, but they are nowhere near the threat of the right.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2019, 05:13:04 PM
There was only one side that was heavily armed.

And they have a history of being heavily armed going back decades. That wasn't new on their part.

Quote
And again and again. To lay this at the doorstep of anti-fa, as Trump did, is very much newsworthy.

Pretty sure he initially laid the blame on "multiple sides" which would imply he didn't zero in on Anti-Fa.

Quote
Nazis have a right to protest. But nobody should be saying they and their buddies are fine people. Previously, everybody understood that and they were widely condemned as a joke. The rise of the alt-right into mainstream consciousness frightened some people. I don't defend Anti-fa, never have, but they are nowhere near the threat of the right.

There probably were people present there who really were there on 1st Amendment grounds and for the purpose of preserving history. Trump addressed that in his initial remarks. People on this very forum are also in favor of preserving history, and open to discussion about the context in which it is presented. Just tearing down, or outright destroying monuments simply because it offends somebody isn't a promising precedent to be setting when it comes to accurate portrayals of history going forward.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 04, 2019, 05:45:12 PM
It's an interesting side track TheDrake, but it's a still a side track.  If you accept the non-Nazi/Racist protesters are greater than zero percent, and we know for a fact that there are plenty of non-Nazi/Racists that object to destroying statutes of Confederates, then the idea that Trump could only mean that Racists are good people is without merit.

It's also without merit because he specifically identified the groups as those in favor of tearing down statues and renaming the park, and those opposed, and specifically called out the Nazi/Fascists in the same friggin speech.  Whether you think he's wrong that such people were present doesn't change the fact that he identified them as the group to which he was referring, and it's frankly a misrepresentation or lie to claim otherwise. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 06:03:44 PM
Quote
There probably were people present there who really were there on 1st Amendment grounds and for the purpose of preserving history. Trump addressed that in his initial remarks. People on this very forum are also in favor of preserving history, and open to discussion about the context in which it is presented. Just tearing down, or outright destroying monuments simply because it offends somebody isn't a promising precedent to be setting when it comes to accurate portrayals of history going forward.

Quote
It's an interesting side track TheDrake, but it's a still a side track.  If you accept the non-Nazi/Racist protesters are greater than zero percent, and we know for a fact that there are plenty of non-Nazi/Racists that object to destroying statutes of Confederates, then the idea that Trump could only mean that Racists are good people is without merit.

And that's all out there in the news for people to discern. The fact that some news outlets had pundits on essentially saying that made Trump a Nazi himself, and other outlets were putting people on fiercely defending him and the right of even Nazis to free speech, does that mean that they were both misleading? Only one? It is an opinion, inferred from Trump's reaction that was an outlier from what any other political leader was saying.

Here's how the Atlantic summed it up at the time:

Quote
At a brief press appearance at Bedminster on Saturday, Trump said he condemned “in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence, on many sides,” repeating the last phrase twice. He did not explicitly condemn white nationalists beyond his general remarks, and an anonymous White House official told reporters “the President was condemning hatred, bigotry and violence from all sources and all sides. There was violence between protestors and counter protestors today.”

I don't think there's a single false statement in there.

It stands in stark contrast when compared to the Governor of Virginia:

Quote
"I have a message to all the white supremacists and the Nazis who came into Charlottesville today," McAuliffe said in a Saturday evening news conference. "Go home. You are not wanted in this great commonwealth. Shame on you."

It is legitimate to question where Trump really stands, it isn't unfair to him.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2019, 06:33:04 PM
It stands in stark contrast when compared to the Governor of Virginia:

Quote
"I have a message to all the white supremacists and the Nazis who came into Charlottesville today," McAuliffe said in a Saturday evening news conference. "Go home. You are not wanted in this great commonwealth. Shame on you."

It is legitimate to question where Trump really stands, it isn't unfair to him.

I think it is more legitimate to question where McAuliffe stands on Free Speech, and Anti-Fa. Evidently he's cool with Anti-Fa being violent, it's those White Supremacists that aren't okay.

Meanwhile Trump is saying neither Anti-Fa or the White Supremacists are okay.

I think I'll side with Trump on that one. I don't stand with Anti-Fa, and I don't stand with the Nazi's either.

Edit to add: And to back up to Trump's statement again, the one that was taken out of context:

Quote
We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country.

Is it the position that White Supremacists are NOT Bigots? That they do NOT demonstrate Hate? Or that they were NOT violent?

Is it the position of the Media (and the Governor of Virginia) that AntiFA was NOT acting out of Hate? That Anti-Fa was NOT seeking violence?

Did Trump not later go on to say, in the same speech, we're not going to fix these problems with more hate?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 06:45:54 PM
It stands in stark contrast when compared to the Governor of Virginia:

Quote
"I have a message to all the white supremacists and the Nazis who came into Charlottesville today," McAuliffe said in a Saturday evening news conference. "Go home. You are not wanted in this great commonwealth. Shame on you."

It is legitimate to question where Trump really stands, it isn't unfair to him.

I think it is more legitimate to question where McAuliffe stands on Free Speech, and Anti-Fa. Evidently he's cool with Anti-Fa being violent, it's those White Supremacists that aren't okay.

Meanwhile Trump is saying neither Anti-Fa or the White Supremacists are okay.

I think I'll side with Trump on that one. I don't stand with Anti-Fa, and I don't stand with the Nazi's either.

And I can see how someone could draw that conclusion. It is rational. A news article highlighting McAuliffe for failing to comment on Antifa would also not be false or misleading.

There's this thing about free speech, you can say everything McAuliffe said and still defend the right of the hate group to spill their hate. You're not required to welcome it or act like it is okay to come in and say the things they say.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2019, 06:57:27 PM
It stands in stark contrast when compared to the Governor of Virginia:

Quote
"I have a message to all the white supremacists and the Nazis who came into Charlottesville today," McAuliffe said in a Saturday evening news conference. "Go home. You are not wanted in this great commonwealth. Shame on you."

It is legitimate to question where Trump really stands, it isn't unfair to him.

I think it is more legitimate to question where McAuliffe stands on Free Speech, and Anti-Fa. Evidently he's cool with Anti-Fa being violent, it's those White Supremacists that aren't okay.

Meanwhile Trump is saying neither Anti-Fa or the White Supremacists are okay.

I think I'll side with Trump on that one. I don't stand with Anti-Fa, and I don't stand with the Nazi's either.

And I can see how someone could draw that conclusion. It is rational. A news article highlighting McAuliffe for failing to comment on Antifa would also not be false or misleading.

There's this thing about free speech, you can say everything McAuliffe said and still defend the right of the hate group to spill their hate. You're not required to welcome it or act like it is okay to come in and say the things they say.

Oh, you mean like when Trump said this?

Quote
We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 07:25:08 PM
It's much weaker, much weaker. He's calling people out for their hatred of nazis and their bigotry against them. You're supposed to hate them and be biased against them. It's only the violence that is the wrong solution. I understand your points, I'm just never going to agree with them, and I suspect the reverse is true.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2019, 09:53:57 PM
It's much weaker, much weaker. He's calling people out for their hatred of nazis and their bigotry against them. You're supposed to hate them and be biased against them. It's only the violence that is the wrong solution. I understand your points, I'm just never going to agree with them, and I suspect the reverse is true.

 ::)

Ok, this is a pretty solid demonstration of TDS, I think.

Explain again how declaring his own opposition to "Hatred, Bigotry, and Violence" wasn't a condemnation of White Supremacist groups which also have strong tendencies towards misogny? I'm even more interested on how you managed to pull the 180 on that and managed to make that a condemnation of people who oppose White Supremacists and their frequently misogynistic ways.

In fact, I think as outlined previously today, the only group in Charlotte on that day who truly met all three criteria he spelled out were the White Supremacists. AntiFa could only claim 2 out of 3, and even getting to 2 is a stretch for them on that day, as all they managed to do was threaten it. Only a White Supremacist actually followed through on being violent.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 05, 2019, 10:11:00 AM
And that's all out there in the news for people to discern.

And that's the point.  We live in a society, where people do not read entire speeches, they rely on reporters to give them an accurate summary, or even a headline banner.  They are manipulable specifically because they never dig to get to everything that's available.

Its literally the point we're discussing.  A lot of people will say to your face that Trump has refused to condemn white nationalism, that he could have done it, that he could have "easily" cleared this up.  It's pretty much a lie.  He has condemned it, the media has deliberately suppressed the condemnations and quoted the parts that make it look as confused as possible, because they want people to believe the lie.

That's how propaganda works.  It's based on just enough truth or possibility of truth and repeated so much that it convinces the reader it must be true.  And you even get smart people on message boards defending the ultimate fake conclusion, because they've heard it from so many sources that they've internalized it and become resistant to the actual reality.

Much like, you see the oft stated "fact" that Trump is a racist or his policies are racist, notwithstanding he has no personal history of being a racist, has been visible in the public eye for decades, and that his actual policies have directly led and intentionally led to better economic opportunities for minorities and he's made it a priority to reform a prison system that is unfair to minorities.  Take a look at the second step act (to follow on the first step act).

So why do you allow that lie to be stated without challenging it?  Because you've heard it so much, you think it must be true.  Ask for evidence.

Quote
It stands in stark contrast when compared to the Governor of Virginia:

A better question is why has the "scandal" in Virginia completely disappeared from the active news, while fake claims of Trump is a racist appear nightly on certain networks.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 05, 2019, 01:33:24 PM
Quote
And that's the point.  We live in a society, where people do not read entire speeches, they rely on reporters to give them an accurate summary, or even a headline banner.  They are manipulable specifically because they never dig to get to everything that's available.

I do understand that in a world where more and more people forward and retweet never reading beyond the headline, people can be susceptible to misinformation.

The Atlantic's headline is this:

Quote
'We Must Reject Hate'
Democratic and Republican leaders broadly rejected the violence at a major white-nationalist gathering in Charlottesville, Virginia.

It doesn't even mention Trump. This is good journalism. People getting a direct mainline infusion from CNN are not getting good information. They are seeing "Trump won't denounce...." on the scroll every 90 seconds.

Part of the disconnect here, as I've mentioned before, is "what is the media?". Is it one outlet or many? Is it the headline, or the body? Or the editorial? If somebody repeats a misleading claim as a headline, like "Nancy Pelosi calls Trump out for refusing..." are they complicit? If they put one point of view in the first paragraph, and the additional information in the second, are they subtly taking advantage of the fact that a certain percentage of people won't get that far? I mean, they have to put it in some kind of order.

It doesn't help that Trump talks like a random sentence generator, he hasn't learned like career politicians that every single sentence can be taken out of context. Remember "You didn't build that."? Or, "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." Or even Howard Dean's "Yeeeaaaaah!"

Trump just generates a lot more opportunities to do this sort of thing, whether by mainstream press or by people generating memes to pass around on twitter. Like "raking the forest". There are probably some good points to be made in that area, and there's some indication that Finnish forestry experts have said there are improvements to make. You'll never get that far.

Does that make it misleading, that talk show hosts are seasoning the news, among other things? Are you going to click on an article that says "Trump makes interesting point supported by forestry experts" or "Trump says that Finns rake the forest."

That one also isn't misleading, he actually did say that. Is it unfair to report that he said it?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 05, 2019, 02:42:43 PM
TheDrake, one headline that is not misleading, doesn't fix hundreds that are.  We're talking about Trump on this point, and when the media is putting up a lieing headline on him, the Atlantic putting up a neutral headline does nothing to correct the problem.

Would you still think the same way if the headlines had all read:

"Trump condemns Nazis and White Nationalists, but has harsh words for people on all side who use violence to suppress political speech"

Would you look at that and get to a conclusion that Trump didn't condemn white nationalists?  Why is "okay" for the overwhelmingly anti-Trump media to overwhelming put out deceptive coverage? 

Why is "state controlled media" offensive but "DNC controlled media" something that criticizing is anti-American?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 05, 2019, 03:20:08 PM
Quote
"Trump condemns Nazis and White Nationalists, but has harsh words for people on all side who use violence to suppress political speech"

Isn't that rather misleading as well? Trump condemns bigots would be okay. Part of the point is that he never called out white nationalists with specificity.

I'm not going to try and perform an exhaustive survey of headlines. I'll stipulate they were probably more on the sensational side.

Quote
Would you look at that and get to a conclusion that Trump didn't condemn white nationalists?

Me personally? I don't look at any one headline or even a preponderance of headlines and draw a conclusion from it.

Quote
DNC controlled media

That would be terrible. If you showed me evidence that the DNC was providing editorial control, that would be bad. If the press and the DNC just share a viewpoint, that's not control.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 05, 2019, 03:29:29 PM
Quote
"Trump condemns Nazis and White Nationalists, but has harsh words for people on all side who use violence to suppress political speech"

Isn't that rather misleading as well? Trump condemns bigots would be okay. Part of the point is that he never called out white nationalists with specificity.

"I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"

That's his quote from the same speech.  He literally did call them out with specificity. 

Do you see what I mean now?  You fell for the propaganda lie.

Quote
I'm not going to try and perform an exhaustive survey of headlines. I'll stipulate they were probably more on the sensational side. \

They don't have to be sensational (though they were) they just have to omit the truth.  What I wrote is actually consistent with he said, and you think somehow its misleading.  That is a specific triumph of propaganda power.

Quote
Quote
DNC controlled media

That would be terrible. If you showed me evidence that the DNC was providing editorial control, that would be bad. If the press and the DNC just share a viewpoint, that's not control.

There's all kinds of evidence that Media Matters coordinates with DNC politicians and friendly journalists, effectively translating DNC talking points directly into newsroom and editorial content, up to an including providing pre-written stories.  Take a look.

Was just reading today, and it could be nonsense, that the DNC controlled house is demanding Fox news give them information on its editorial decision making process.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 05, 2019, 03:36:52 PM
That would be terrible. If you showed me evidence that the DNC was providing editorial control, that would be bad. If the press and the DNC just share a viewpoint, that's not control.

Don't we have literal Wikileaks email evidence of MSM copy being vetted by the DNC during the last election?

But putting aside actual documented evidence, I don't even think it's correct to be ok with the MSM and DNC sharing a viewpoint. Without benefit of hackers and leaks, there would be no way at all to ever know if two parties "happen to agree" on a point or if the one put the other up to it. It's just not possible to expose or verify, and there is always deniability. The job of the press is simply so important, and the need to have them keep politicians in line - rather than serve them - that even coincidental agreement should already look incriminating and be avoided.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 05, 2019, 03:37:36 PM
"I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"

That's his quote from the same speech.  He literally did call them out with specificity. 

Okay, you got me. I had forgotten about that parenthetical late in the speech, but it did exist and that headline would be valid. I don't even think Breitbart ran it that way. I think their headline was more like "Trump rejects Anti-fa violence"

Quote
There's all kinds of evidence that Media Matters coordinates with DNC politicians and friendly journalists, effectively translating DNC talking points directly into newsroom and editorial content, up to an including providing pre-written stories.  Take a look.

How is that different from a press release? Lots of articles out there are just regurgitated content from lots of special interest groups. but all look into it. Suggestions aren't "control".
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 05, 2019, 03:54:24 PM
How is that different from a press release? Lots of articles out there are just regurgitated content from lots of special interest groups. but all look into it. Suggestions aren't "control".

I think that there's a certain antiquated definition of "state propaganda" which is pretty much obsolete by now. If we limit our definition to the government outright using force to require specific statements by media, then although I *still* think there is some of that, it won't be of much relevance to the majority of MSM output that we're concerned about. The breeds of propaganda both technologically possible, and economically likely, won't look much like that, but are just as dangerous, if not more because there is no one source for them and therefore no enemy to go after to put a stop to it. It's more likely  a bunch of unofficial alliances, money interests, corporate/government connections (like working directly with Google for instance), quid pro quo (like: you print our releases and we'll keep it coming), think tanks organizing CEO's of different organizations to play well together, majority shareholders playing at their own agendas, and probably above all opportunists looking for an edge over the competition by edging up to powerful 'friends'.

Let's take a strange case in point: the relationship between the U.S. military and Hollywood. Under normal circumstances major blockbusters would never be able to obtain, or afford to buy, the sorts of aircraft and military vehicles necessary to put on films like Transformers and many others. Neither would they ever have easy access to military trainers, experts, weapons, and other resources needed to put on these sorts of films. It's well-known that in order to gain access to the wonderful paradise of materiel and people that Hollywood production companies have an arrangement where (a) the military gets to vet the scripts to make sure they aren't overly critical, and in general portray the military in a positive light, and (b) the relationship is ideally kept on an ongoing basis to retain this dialogue and foster mutually-agreeable relations between both sides. This is straight propaganda, no Wikileaks required, and it's a routine way of doing business to gain access to the Big Boys and their toys. And none of it is coerced or controlled by government; on the contrary, the filmmakers no doubt line up for the opportunity, so in a way this is the very essence of free speech. And yet it's completely Orwellian, just like the 'fake new's and various other kinds of mental programming going on.

Demanding a smoking gun from a clandestine meeting to prove that this is how business is done now strikes me as missing the point: that it's not about Stalinist control, but lateral and even mutually agreeable arrangements that have the same effect but with no one bad guy behind it. As if CNN isn't loving every minute of it - they aren't being strongarmed, it's their actual business model now!
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 05, 2019, 04:17:37 PM
But putting aside actual documented evidence, I don't even think it's correct to be ok with the MSM and DNC sharing a viewpoint. Without benefit of hackers and leaks, there would be no way at all to ever know if two parties "happen to agree" on a point or if the one put the other up to it. It's just not possible to expose or verify, and there is always deniability. The job of the press is simply so important, and the need to have them keep politicians in line - rather than serve them - that even coincidental agreement should already look incriminating and be avoided.

And this is why US politics appear to have hit the wrong reset button and we somehow seem to be stuck in the political/press situation of 1796 to 1800 instead.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 05, 2019, 04:28:10 PM
Quote
And yet it's completely Orwellian, just like the 'fake new's and various other kinds of mental programming going on.

Product placement is Orwellian? It's not like you can't make a movie showing abuse at Abu Graib or any other film highly critical of the military.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on April 05, 2019, 06:12:42 PM

Quote
DNC controlled media

That would be terrible. If you showed me evidence that the DNC was providing editorial control, that would be bad.

OK, I can do that!

Quote
Managing editor of politics for NBC News and MSNBC Dafna Linzer and media reporter Yashar Ali apparently engaged in a bizarre back and forth phone conversation regarding Ali’s scoop from yesterday that NBC News, MSNBC and Telemundo would co-host the first Democratic Party debate on two specific nights in June: the 26th and the 27th.

Back in February, the three NBCU networks had announced that they’d co-host the debates, yet they had yet to announce the location and specific dates.

Ali got the dates and the location (Miami) before the network was ready to announce, and Linzer apparently wanted Ali to delay publishing his scoop. It comes across as odd that she was asking this of him, not at the behest of her employer, but instead on behalf of the Democratic National Committee wanted time to notify their state leaders.

“Why not?” Linzer continued to ask Ali when he said he was going to publish his scoop without being forced to wait for the DNC. “It’s not a big deal, let them make a few phone calls,” she apparently stated.

“I realized that [Linzer], the head of all political coverage for NBC News and MSNBC, wasn’t calling to advocate for her network, she was calling to advocate the DNC’s position,” Ali said during an extremely lengthy Twitter thread. “I was so surprised me that she was talking this way with a total stranger. The head of the political division was trying to bully me at the behest of the DNC over a dumb scoop.”

If the head of all political coverage for NBC News and MSNBC goes to bat for the DNC over a "dumb scoop", what do you think they're doing around more significant stories?

You can go to Ali's twitter account and see the story or you can google it.

Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 06, 2019, 01:16:01 PM
That's evidence about as powerful as Dr. Ford isn't it? We've got one person's unverified account of this phone call. It still isn't editorial control, it was asking for a delay in publication.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 06, 2019, 01:33:58 PM
That's evidence about as powerful as Dr. Ford isn't it? We've got one person's unverified account of this phone call. It still isn't editorial control, it was asking for a delay in publication.

But if the reporter had been more sympathetic towards the Democratic Party, and agreed with their overall platform, and prioritized the benefit of the platform over journalistic integrity...
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on April 06, 2019, 06:17:39 PM
That's evidence about as powerful as Dr. Ford isn't it? We've got one person's unverified account of this phone call. It still isn't editorial control, it was asking for a delay in publication.

Publication decisions are what editors do. Whether delaying or killing it completely. It’s incredible how you refuse to see things.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 07, 2019, 06:53:48 AM
Maybe to most of the left anyone who doesn't want to tear down old Confederate statues is a white supremacist and pure evil. To at least some of them that goes for anyone wearing a MAGA hat too.

Gotta be honest here.

Knowing what I do about the Civil War, and it's causes.

And, yeah, fine. State's rights. What were those states getting uppity about to the extent they'd take up arms against the federal government? The right for a state to enslave human beings, that's what.

Who the hell goes out to defend a monument to that? Lee might have been a great general and a cool dude, but building a statue for him for his actions in that conflict is sending a pretty clear message.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on April 07, 2019, 08:44:17 AM
Knowing what you know about the civil war and all, remind us again which political party drove it and then erected those statues. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 07, 2019, 11:30:34 AM
Knowing what you know about the civil war and all, remind us again which political party drove it and then erected those statues.

Sure thing, my man.

You see, *back then*, the Democrats were the bad guys. That even lasted a whIle!

Then, what is it? Fifty odd years ago? Things switched. Then it became the Republicans who didn't like black people.

You, of course, know this. You're just going down your little card of talking points, and you really like this one because "Huh huh what party was Lincoln?"  is high results, low effort.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 07, 2019, 12:11:09 PM
Just a reminder to bring up Strom Thormond, he's a totally legit counter to how the parties changed sides lol.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 07, 2019, 01:21:44 PM
Just a reminder to bring up Strom Thormond, he's a totally legit counter to how the parties changed sides lol.

Don't forget Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which consisted of winning Southern Urban Population Centers which were Racially diverse and generally much more (racially) tolerant than their rural counterparts. Or where, in 1968 and 1972, his catering to racist voters in the south would have cost him votes from conservatives in New England and elsewhere, which was something he needed even more than he needed to pick up additional EC votes in the south.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 07, 2019, 01:31:26 PM
Just a reminder to bring up Strom Thormond, he's a totally legit counter to how the parties changed sides lol.

Don't forget Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which consisted of winning Southern Urban Population Centers which were Racially diverse and generally much more (racially) tolerant than their rural counterparts. Or where, in 1968 and 1972, his catering to racist voters in the south would have cost him votes from conservatives in New England and elsewhere, which was something he needed even more than he needed to pick up additional EC votes in the south.

Thanks for this. It's kind of funny but every defense I've been thinking of involves Cherry and Seriati. Not that they're Crunch level, just that they'd be more likely to hop on his BS.

Not a single one about you. You're obviously a conservative, and fair enough, but I've not once seen you sink down to their level. Thanks for that.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 07, 2019, 02:18:06 PM
Just a reminder to bring up Strom Thormond, he's a totally legit counter to how the parties changed sides lol.

Don't forget Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which consisted of winning Southern Urban Population Centers which were Racially diverse and generally much more (racially) tolerant than their rural counterparts. Or where, in 1968 and 1972, his catering to racist voters in the south would have cost him votes from conservatives in New England and elsewhere, which was something he needed even more than he needed to pick up additional EC votes in the south.

Thanks for this. It's kind of funny but every defense I've been thinking of involves Cherry and Seriati. Not that they're Crunch level, just that they'd be more likely to hop on his BS.

Not a single one about you. You're obviously a conservative, and fair enough, but I've not once seen you sink down to their level. Thanks for that.

Man, this makes me sound like a dick.

Okay, so I'm currently in the middle of a bender. I'm real drunk. So I'm sorry to whoever I offended. Cherry ain't so bad anymore, I figure he's like me, just pops in now and then to give his piece, just on the opposite side. Seriati gives very well constructed and informed opinions, just on the wrong side of things haha. Just kidding Seriati, I disagree with you on everything but read every word you write and appreciate it.

Crunch is a troll bringing us what he's been shown on Facebook.

DJQuag: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on April 07, 2019, 02:50:21 PM
DJQuag,

totally agree that Seriati provides interesting analysis - and I greatly appreciate his contribution (he and I probably agree on quite a bit, but discussion forums tend to amplify the areas of disagreement).  I also appreciate Cherry popping in from time to time.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 08, 2019, 11:08:37 AM
That's evidence about as powerful as Dr. Ford isn't it? We've got one person's unverified account of this phone call. It still isn't editorial control, it was asking for a delay in publication.

If by "as powerful" you mean specific details of the story involved, the date it occurred, the specific person on the call, and presumably completely capable of proving from phone records that the call occurred.  And I'm not even sure the call details have been denied have they?   Only an assertion that there was a misunderstanding/ nothing really going on.

This one was silly anyway.  Delaying a trivial scoop isn't an issue to me, even asking it be delayed without any real news purpose isn't an issue.  It does make you wonder if it should matter to journalists as an ethical matter, but to the rest of us?  Not really.

On the issue of the southern strategy, it was clearly a real thing.  My issue is the interpretation and gloss on it is pretty much backwards looking revisionism.  It was not about endorsing racism, which the Republican record on at that time was 100% better than the Democratic one.  Nothing about the Republican platform endorsed racist policies then or now.

You see, *back then*, the Democrats were the bad guys. That even lasted a whIle!

Then, what is it? Fifty odd years ago? Things switched. Then it became the Republicans who didn't like black people.

I don't see the "old Democratic" position as much different than the "new Democratic" position on race.  Then they were plantation owners who knew better than their black people they previously owned, now they are social autocrats and engineers who know better than the black people whose votes they believe they own.  In both cases, the policies on the other side - Republican - would be better for the people the Democrats claim to want to help, and instead of actually debating those policies or trying to develop real policies the Dems just keep promising to give more stuff away to buy votes at the expense of villians they set up to be knocked down (angry white many, "the rich"). 

I mean honestly, reparations are suddenly on the table.  Why now?  We have record unemployment and real wage growth, less and less people on the public dole.  So why now?  Why does the green new deal include universal basic income concepts including for those who don't want to work?  We have a labor shortage and the left is advocating to make it worse?  Why?  - We all know why, they are afraid that if people realize their lives are getting better they're realize the left's policies are morally bankrupt and not give them power.

So when you call or imply that Republicans are racist, I suggest you take another look.  The party whose policies consistently make life better for minorities through providing opportunity has nothing to be ashamed of when compared to the party of plantation owners looking to hand out scraps to keep itself in power.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 08, 2019, 12:06:39 PM
I wouldn't be opposed to a UBI, so long as they also start lowering the minimum wage as part of the exchange. :)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 08, 2019, 12:44:27 PM
I wouldn't be opposed to a UBI, so long as they also start lowering the minimum wage as part of the exchange. :)

IMO a UBI would be grounds to eliminate altogether many forms of social safety net, and would help to extremely simplify the system.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: scifibum on April 08, 2019, 12:48:45 PM
Quote
I mean honestly, reparations are suddenly on the table.  Why now?  We have record unemployment and real wage growth, less and less people on the public dole.  So why now?  Why does the green new deal include universal basic income concepts including for those who don't want to work?  We have a labor shortage and the left is advocating to make it worse?  Why?  - We all know why, they are afraid that if people realize their lives are getting better they're realize the left's policies are morally bankrupt and not give them power.

You're obviously not asking the question in good faith, since you think "we all know why", but for anybody who wants to know, it's because the generational effects of slavery and Jim Crow continue, and because it would bring some measure of economic justice to the descendants of the oppressed people. This covers some data points:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianthompson1/2018/02/18/the-racial-wealth-gap-addressing-americas-most-pressing-epidemic/#12e5ac977a48 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianthompson1/2018/02/18/the-racial-wealth-gap-addressing-americas-most-pressing-epidemic/#12e5ac977a48)

You can obviously choose to believe in conservative articles of faith such as government assistance doesn't really help people, but making up racist motives for others is pretty low.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 08, 2019, 01:48:38 PM
You're obviously not asking the question in good faith...

That's true, I get sick and tired of the left accusing Republicans of being racist while the left's policies create the real racial harms.  It's the cynicism and hypoocrisy of it all that really offends.

Quote
...since you think "we all know why", but for anybody who wants to know, it's because the generational effects of slavery and Jim Crow continue, and because it would bring some measure of economic justice to the descendants of the oppressed people.

I'm really annoyed with Google right now.  It seems almost impossible to find data that was easily available just a couple of years ago that doesn't support the leftist interpretation.

In any event, what you'd want to look at is the actual growth in black family income after the end of slavery to modern times.  You'll find an immediate upward trajectory that was steadily gaining on equivalence with everyone else that pretty much was ended and broken when the left introduced massive social welfare initiatives to "help."

It's still going on now.  Reparations are not to fix the legacy of racism, they're to fix the failed legacy of the lefts social manipulation, and even there they aren't to fix it but to double down on making people dependent on the government.  It's bad policy, it's harmful policy, it's designed to create and encourage dependency and to buy votes.

And yes it's pressing now, along with the renewed interest in every other way they can think of to buy votes, because they are terrified that Trump's approach is working and despite the media's attempts that the people will realize it.

Quote
This covers some data points:

Sort of.  Go back in history.  Where we are today is not just rooted in what happened 150 years ago, but in everything that has happened in the last 150 years.  There's a much stronger connection to bad liberal policy than to slavery.

And you know what, there's a really strong connection to good Republican policies in actually increasing that wealth today.  The goal of this is stop that progress.

Or put another way, how do you plan to continue Trump's overwhelming success in creating actual improvement in opportunity at the bottom end of the economic ladder?

Quote
You can obviously choose to believe in conservative articles of faith such as government assistance doesn't really help people, but making up racist motives for others is pretty low.

Is it?

Then, what is it? Fifty odd years ago? Things switched. Then it became the Republicans who didn't like black people.

My attitude on this has changed.  I'm no longer "laughing off" lies asserting that Republicans are racist made to terminate policy debate, nor am I going to fail to apply the same version of the standard to the policies of the left.  This is about fairness to me.  If you can claim Republicans are racist because they oppose a particular form of welfare, then I feel absolutely justified in pointing out that the Democratic policies generate racist results.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 08, 2019, 02:23:11 PM
In any event, what you'd want to look at is the actual growth in black family income after the end of slavery to modern times.  You'll find an immediate upward trajectory that was steadily gaining on equivalence with everyone else that pretty much was ended and broken when the left introduced massive social welfare initiatives to "help."

It's still going on now.  Reparations are not to fix the legacy of racism, they're to fix the failed legacy of the lefts social manipulation, and even there they aren't to fix it but to double down on making people dependent on the government.  It's bad policy, it's harmful policy, it's designed to create and encourage dependency and to buy votes.

All of this may or may not be true. I do think that government (and private interests) manipulating people has had some very real effects in real-life communities, which can range from the "War on Drugs" to welfare, to endorsing public images and branding that are in fact harmful to everyday life while filling the pockets of people the brands claim to champion, at the social expense of those very people.

But that being said the real problem of reparations is that there's no coherent logic behind it that makes any sense in a broader context than politically hip slogans. Is helping to stop racist policies good? Yes! It is proper to end police abuses, such as they are? Yes! And is it good to make sure that 'standardized testing' and other such 'objective' measures do not in fact marginalize people on a cultural basis? Of course. But reparations is an entirely different matter, because it makes no distinction between wrong done and the current status of those people. In fact, it cannot even possibly define who "those people" are, as anyone studying genetics and gene pools would know. Just on this latter point, the moment we begin to even discuss having enough "genetic purity" to count for such things we're right into Nazi eugenics, both in tone and in legitimacy. But let's put that aside and go back to the issue of appropriateness.

If the sole determining factor in assigning reparations was current status then in fact the idea of wrongdoing in the past would surely be irrelevant, would it not? You'd assess who's suffering the most now and simply bring them up to parity with others. Or at least it would do so in some nominal way that would last only until those monies are spent. Let's even leave off whether this would help them in the long-term. But if it's based strictly on past aggressions towards certain minorities, and not based on current status, then there are countless groups that should be compensated besides the descendents of American slaves. What about the Jews, who were almost as equally maligned in North America as the African-Americans were in the early 20th century? And in some cases I would wager it was even worse for the Jews. What about the treatment of Asians in America in the 19th century and then leading up to the end of WWII? And we could name other groups and other instances besides. But clearly this standard would not be supported by those who support reparations.

It would seem that the one standard that could even conceivably make sense would be that both a past abuse, plus a current struggling status, would qualify. But then does it have to be demonstrated that the culpability of the current struggling status lies 100% in specific parties, such as either government, law enforcement, etc? Or how can it be traced whether the current struggling is in fact tied to the past abuses? Where are the control groups when comparing abused people of one ethnic group with abused people of another, to account for a current disparity in relative success?

The entire topic is mind-boggling, and I can't help but feel that it boils down to little more than a slogan. And bear in mind as I say this that my general overview about the struggling in America is that they largely do need to be championed, but not in this way. It would be more generally functional, to say nothing of agreeable, to simply apply a general UBI on a non-discriminatory basis to give everyone a safety net regardless of background.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 08, 2019, 02:40:31 PM
If the sole determining factor in assigning reparations was current status then in fact the idea of wrongdoing in the past would surely be irrelevant, would it not? You'd assess who's suffering the most now and simply bring them up to parity with others. Or at least it would do so in some nominal way that would last only until those monies are spent. Let's even leave off whether this would help them in the long-term. But if it's based strictly on past aggressions towards certain minorities, and not based on current status, then there are countless groups that should be compensated besides the descendents of American slaves. What about the Jews, who were almost as equally maligned in North America as the African-Americans were in the early 20th century? And in some cases I would wager it was even worse for the Jews. What about the treatment of Asians in America in the 19th century and then leading up to the end of WWII? And we could name other groups and other instances besides. But clearly this standard would not be supported by those who support reparations.

So far as bad treatment within the borders of the United States, I think the Mormons have a stronger claim than even the Jews. But I also know that one is a road to nowhere because nobody is going to seriously pursue a "reparations program for Mormons." Particularly considering most of the Mormons on the receiving end of that stuff were overwhelmingly white, and so are their descendants. That and "the Mormons did well enough on their own" despite all of that.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on April 08, 2019, 03:02:11 PM
Europe was a bloody place to live for well, pretty much always, and my ancestors were treated very badly. Lucky to survive actually what with being cannon fodder for so many lost kingdoms...
Who will apologize or has the statute of limitations passed.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on April 08, 2019, 03:06:00 PM
Depending on where they're from you might have trouble finding enough surviving descendants of European aristocrats to apologize.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on April 08, 2019, 03:46:44 PM
Not politically correct to say however history is full of stories of lost peoples, kingdoms, assimilation's, genocides, enslavement's, injustices…. When you lose it hurts?
The odds are that if you go back far enough every family will find ancestors being unjustly treated.

How many generations do the defeated get to hold on to the pain of injustice and demands that something else should have happened?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 08, 2019, 03:47:04 PM
So which party gave us Steve King? Richard Nixon? Nevertheless, the big momentum behind branding Republicans racist is false. Republican policy generally is against programs for poor people and framed in a racist way by democrats. I do think that voter rules have a racial bias, but it still isn't racism, it's just an attempt to remove people who overwhelmingly vote Dem.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on April 08, 2019, 03:51:57 PM
Not politically correct to say however history is full of stories of lost peoples, kingdoms, assimilation's, genocides, enslavement's, injustices…. When you lose it hurts?
The odds are that if you go back far enough every family will find ancestors being unjustly treated.

How many generations do the defeated get to hold on to the pain of injustice and demands that something else should have happened?

The reverse question is how soon do oppressors get to declare themselves innocent and no longer beneficiaries of a discriminatory system?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 08, 2019, 03:58:04 PM
Republican policy generally is against programs for poor people and framed in a racist way by democrats.

Republican policy is for real help for the poor, and against programs that trade on good intentions to cause suffering.  Republicans get their votes from the middle class, and their policies are designed to increase the middle class. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 08, 2019, 04:04:49 PM
How many generations do the defeated get to hold on to the pain of injustice and demands that something else should have happened?

The reverse question is how soon do oppressors get to declare themselves innocent and no longer beneficiaries of a discriminatory system?

I don't think there is a meaningful definition of "innocent" such that this question can have an answer. And anyhow, the issue is not with a moral status of innocent/guilty, but rather whose responsibility it is to take what actions. As far as we still consider it, government is a representative of the people as a whole, who are the 'real ones' taking action if the government takes action. So any taxpayer or voter is effectively the person 'paying back' reparations, if such were ever made into policy. Can you imagine the irony of one historically oppressed group having to 'pay back' something to another one, with whom their ancestors may have in fact had no contact at all?

If you're going to focus in on "discriminatory system", though, then the correct action to take is to make sure the system fails to be discriminatory going forward. The notion of reparations to fix past problems is akin to the argument of waging wars over past land disputes.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on April 08, 2019, 04:14:55 PM
How many generations do the defeated get to hold on to the pain of injustice and demands that something else should have happened?

The reverse question is how soon do oppressors get to declare themselves innocent and no longer beneficiaries of a discriminatory system?

I don't think there is a meaningful definition of "innocent" such that this question can have an answer. And anyhow, the issue is not with a moral status of innocent/guilty, but rather whose responsibility it is to take what actions. As far as we still consider it, government is a representative of the people as a whole, who are the 'real ones' taking action if the government takes action. So any taxpayer or voter is effectively the person 'paying back' reparations, if such were ever made into policy. Can you imagine the irony of one historically oppressed group having to 'pay back' something to another one, with whom their ancestors may have in fact had no contact at all?

If you're going to focus in on "discriminatory system", though, then the correct action to take is to make sure the system fails to be discriminatory going forward. The notion of reparations to fix past problems is akin to the argument of waging wars over past land disputes.

So if the government confiscated all the wealth from one group and distributed it another group, would it be acceptable for the next administration to declare that the only correct action would be to make sure it doesn't happen again?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 08, 2019, 05:06:05 PM
So if the government confiscated all the wealth from one group and distributed it another group, would it be acceptable for the next administration to declare that the only correct action would be to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Doesn't exactly that happen now with taxes? But if you're talking about looting homes and so forth then I think the problem would be more widespread than how to make ourselves more sensitive to those who are struggling, don't you think? Anything as pervasive as you mean would basically be equivalent to a civil war, or perhaps descent into a totalitarian state, in which case, yeah, I'd say the top priority would be to secure the stability of the government.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 08, 2019, 05:20:37 PM
Remember when Japanese citizens had their property stolen and their freedom taken away? Was Reagan wrong to make reparations? For me, the key is that you should only make reparations to the actual people, and not their descendants.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 08, 2019, 05:46:45 PM
The country seems to be moving away justice and more to kangaroo court concepts.  Guilty until proven innocent, financial and social penalties without an underlying crime.  I guess the idea that something is owed between 2 people who were not involved in the event in the first instance 150 years ago makes sense against that background.  Even though I doubt you'd sign on to say making children accountable for the crimes of their parents (or really great great grat grandparents) in other contexts.

If you're going to do it, I'd like to understand how you intend to calculate it.

I mean, anyone that benefited from an affirmative action policy has already received some of that reparation amount, ergo both them and their descendants should be docked by the value of those prior services provided.  What about dilution by number of children?  Is it based on the original slave ancestor and  split among all their descendants equally, which is more similar to what the supposed benefit to others was?  Did those who got 40 acres and a mule already get their due?  Or do you intend to give each descendant the same reparations equally?  Is it based on percentage of slave versus non-slave ancestors?

What about people that have demonstrably succeeded, are they still due reparations?  What about their children that have had every advantage including private schools, elite universities and parental contributions to their business endeavors?

How are you paying for them?  Are you going to figure out the descendants of the families that owned slaves and take it from them?  Are people who've immigrated after the days of the slave trade exempt from the reparations tax?  What about immigrants from Mexico?  What about people who have ancestors on both sides of the coin?

Is this a one time payment that permanently cures the taint and we can forevermore declare society just and done with this issue?  Or is this a permanent subsidy that never ends?  Is a punishment to someone intentionally, or only a benefit to some?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on April 08, 2019, 06:01:11 PM
So if the government confiscated all the wealth from one group and distributed it another group, would it be acceptable for the next administration to declare that the only correct action would be to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Doesn't exactly that happen now with taxes? But if you're talking about looting homes and so forth then I think the problem would be more widespread than how to make ourselves more sensitive to those who are struggling, don't you think? Anything as pervasive as you mean would basically be equivalent to a civil war, or perhaps descent into a totalitarian state, in which case, yeah, I'd say the top priority would be to secure the stability of the government.

The method of distribution would be legal not criminal. The question is simple: should any attempt be undertaken to correct the injustice of the previous administration?

Though this is more a matter of principle rather than moving towards a practical solution.

Quote
What about people that have demonstrably succeeded, are they still due reparations?
Are you still due recompense if I steal everything you were due to inherit from your grandparents but you became a millionaire regardless?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 08, 2019, 06:34:12 PM
Quote
What about people that have demonstrably succeeded, are they still due reparations?
Are you still due recompense if I steal everything you were due to inherit from your grandparents but you became a millionaire regardless?

If you blew the money in Vegas, are your children required to be debt slaves to mine to pay off what you stole?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 08, 2019, 06:41:32 PM
If you're going to do it, I'd like to understand how you intend to calculate it.

I mean, anyone that benefited from an affirmative action policy has already received some of that reparation amount, ergo both them and their descendants should be docked by the value of those prior services provided.  What about dilution by number of children?  Is it based on the original slave ancestor and  split among all their descendants equally, which is more similar to what the supposed benefit to others was?  Did those who got 40 acres and a mule already get their due?  Or do you intend to give each descendant the same reparations equally?  Is it based on percentage of slave versus non-slave ancestors?

Valid question, one of my Ancestral LDS(Mormon) family lines actually has slave owners in its past as I've discovered this past year. My mother also has non-LDS ancestors who appear to have possibly owned slaves at one point(prior to the 1820's), but we haven't confirmed we're looking at the right family on that one. However, when it comes to "the LDS side" that owned slaves, the husband always freed any he was given ownership of, and while his wife was the daughter of a large plantation owner. He immediately freed the slaves he was given as a dowry, in the early 1830's, in Mississippi no less. So I'd be intrigued as to exactly how much "guilt"/burden I'm supposed to bear for my ancestor's transgressions.

This also ignores the matter that every single one of my father's ancestral lines immigrated into the United States after 1860, and while one line did spend a couple decades in Missouri, they moved into the Great Plains after that, living north of the by-then defunct, Mason-Dixon line, so their "benefit" from the institution of slavery is likely to have been 0.

The "other line" where it looks like slaves may have been owned by the family? They also went through a period of intense poverty in Oregon during the 1870's so I'm not sure what "ill gotten inheritance" I may have acquired from that family line through slavery they may not have been participants in more than 50 years prior to that. 

Oh and I can also demonstrate multiple ancestors, and immediate family members of those ancestors, who fought on the side of the Union during the Civil War, even though a few of them were born in Southern States. But then in full disclosure, it appears the family group that lived in Mississippi for a time(having left MS by 1848) had 1st/2nd Cousins who likely fought for the Confederacy. Does that change the equation any?

Quote
What about people that have demonstrably succeeded, are they still due reparations?  What about their children that have had every advantage including private schools, elite universities and parental contributions to their business endeavors?

Interesting question, are Beyonce, Will Smith, and Oprah in line for receiving reparations?

Quote
How are you paying for them?  Are you going to figure out the descendants of the families that owned slaves and take it from them?  Are people who've immigrated after the days of the slave trade exempt from the reparations tax?  What about immigrants from Mexico?  What about people who have ancestors on both sides of the coin?

Good question, but at least for the European immigrants, I'm guessing they'd be party to the reparations too because "they benefited from Jim Crow" in some indirect way. Even if they lived 900+ miles away from the closest place with a Jim Crow law at the time.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on April 09, 2019, 09:46:20 AM


Are you still due recompense if I steal everything you were due to inherit from your grandparents but you became a millionaire regardless?

If you blew the money in Vegas, are your children required to be debt slaves to mine to pay off what you stole?

No.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 10:10:41 AM
Just a reminder to bring up Strom Thormond, he's a totally legit counter to how the parties changed sides lol.

Don't forget Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which consisted of winning Southern Urban Population Centers which were Racially diverse and generally much more (racially) tolerant than their rural counterparts. Or where, in 1968 and 1972, his catering to racist voters in the south would have cost him votes from conservatives in New England and elsewhere, which was something he needed even more than he needed to pick up additional EC votes in the south.

Thanks for this. It's kind of funny but every defense I've been thinking of involves Cherry and Seriati. Not that they're Crunch level, just that they'd be more likely to hop on his BS.

Not a single one about you. You're obviously a conservative, and fair enough, but I've not once seen you sink down to their level. Thanks for that.

Man, this makes me sound like a dick.

Okay, so I'm currently in the middle of a bender. I'm real drunk. So I'm sorry to whoever I offended. Cherry ain't so bad anymore, I figure he's like me, just pops in now and then to give his piece, just on the opposite side. Seriati gives very well constructed and informed opinions, just on the wrong side of things haha. Just kidding Seriati, I disagree with you on everything but read every word you write and appreciate it.

Crunch is a troll bringing us what he's been shown on Facebook.

DJQuag: Please see your email. -OrneryMod


Okay, I've got a junk, personal, and work email and I've checked all three, not seeing anything from you. What's the domain you're sending it to, if you don't mid me askingm
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 10:24:03 AM
Just while we're on the subject, I do and always have felt for Sanders' rising the tide to lift all ships approach.

If you come to me and try to say that we should be giving special help to LeBron's, Oprahs or hell even Cosby's kids whilst the kids of Joe Six pack who got the name because he came home to the trailer park every night and terrorized his bone white wife and kids after drinking said six pack didn't get anything, based on the color of their skin? Sorry.  I can't get behind that.

And fine. If that's not how your proposed system works, then explain it to me. It's sure as hell what it looks like.

There are issues with race, I get it and I agree. What I don't understand is why people on the left are so resistant to the idea of just helping the poor bastards at the bottom of the totem pole, regardless of skin color. Even in that case, if minorities are overrepresented there then they will accordingly get the lion's share of the benefits, regardless of race. And the white people who grew up in a horrific or even just bad environment, they don't get ignored either.

In what way is, from a left wing perspective at least, this not the best way forward?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 10:56:48 AM
Man...I still remember being on Sake river. They were all throwing their hats in the air and celebrating Clinton's victory and I just copy/pasted my response in the Brexit thread that we had to be real careful, because sometimes the people who you don't expect to vote, vote. And even when they do, people try to make up convulated reasons why they did.

And then Sam of all people was posting, "When you're right, you're right."

Looking after the little people is kind of the bread and butter of the Dems these days. What they've forgotten is that minorities are *minorities* and don't have an electorate. So we don't have an electorate there. Okay, fine, we'll talk about responses to poverty to get the non-rich swing vote Dems in.oh. Oh, okay. We're gonna debate about reperations for black people?

LOL.

Even back in the day when  Dems offered solutions they weren't race based, and that's why they won.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 11:08:35 AM
Doesn't matter if we're right, it matters if we *win.*

Unless you're under the impression that Ginsburg actually is immortal.

Big picture here, guys.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on April 09, 2019, 11:37:43 AM
Just while we're on the subject, I do and always have felt for Sanders' rising the tide to lift all ships approach.

If you come to me and try to say that we should be giving special help to LeBron's, Oprahs or hell even Cosby's kids whilst the kids of Joe Six pack who got the name because he came home to the trailer park every night and terrorized his bone white wife and kids after drinking said six pack didn't get anything, based on the color of their skin? Sorry.  I can't get behind that.

And fine. If that's not how your proposed system works, then explain it to me. It's sure as hell what it looks like.

There are issues with race, I get it and I agree. What I don't understand is why people on the left are so resistant to the idea of just helping the poor bastards at the bottom of the totem pole, regardless of skin color. Even in that case, if minorities are overrepresented there then they will accordingly get the lion's share of the benefits, regardless of race. And the white people who grew up in a horrific or even just bad environment, they don't get ignored either.

In what way is, from a left wing perspective at least, this not the best way forward?

Historically, trying to lift all boats turns into lifting whites-only boats and, at best, ignoring the boats of black people. Even when policies aren't intentionally punching holes in the boats of black people, they still get swamped by the rising tide.

I don't particularly blame them for not believing it when rich white people say, "no, we won't be racist this time."
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 09, 2019, 11:48:42 AM
There are issues with race, I get it and I agree. What I don't understand is why people on the left are so resistant to the idea of just helping the poor bastards at the bottom of the totem pole, regardless of skin color. Even in that case, if minorities are overrepresented there then they will accordingly get the lion's share of the benefits, regardless of race. And the white people who grew up in a horrific or even just bad environment, they don't get ignored either.

From the tin-foil hat perspective, I'd say their reason for ignoring white poverty and focusing on minorities instead is an almost deliberate effort to perpetuate Racism in the country. Because that is exactly what it does.

On a more practical side, anybody with appreciation of the scale of the issue also has to appreciate the cost of such efforts. So anything that makes it "more affordable" is something they're going to pursue, and as whites are supposed to have an easier time "lifting themselves out of poverty" they thus become the easiest one to de-prioritize spending money on.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 09, 2019, 12:03:55 PM
Historically, trying to lift all boats turns into lifting whites-only boats and, at best, ignoring the boats of black people. Even when policies aren't intentionally punching holes in the boats of black people, they still get swamped by the rising tide.

I don't particularly blame them for not believing it when rich white people say, "no, we won't be racist this time."

Can you give a post-WWII example of a policy of 'lifting boats' that ended up benefiting only white people?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 12:04:13 PM
Just while we're on the subject, I do and always have felt for Sanders' rising the tide to lift all ships approach.

If you come to me and try to say that we should be giving special help to LeBron's, Oprahs or hell even Cosby's kids whilst the kids of Joe Six pack who got the name because he came home to the trailer park every night and terrorized his bone white wife and kids after drinking said six pack didn't get anything, based on the color of their skin? Sorry.  I can't get behind that.

And fine. If that's not how your proposed system works, then explain it to me. It's sure as hell what it looks like.

There are issues with race, I get it and I agree. What I don't understand is why people on the left are so resistant to the idea of just helping the poor bastards at the bottom of the totem pole, regardless of skin color. Even in that case, if minorities are overrepresented there then they will accordingly get the lion's share of the benefits, regardless of race. And the white people who grew up in a horrific or even just bad environment, they don't get ignored either.

In what way is, from a left wing perspective at least, this not the best way forward?

Historically, trying to lift all boats turns into lifting whites-only boats and, at best, ignoring the boats of black people. Even when policies aren't intentionally punching holes in the boats of black people, they still get swamped by the rising tide.

I don't particularly blame them for not believing it when rich white people say, "no, we won't be racist this time."

Can Democratic leaders not find a way to say "Fine, things are different these days, this is how I'll do it "

PS I dig your devils advocate deal.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 12:11:08 PM
Historically, trying to lift all boats turns into lifting whites-only boats and, at best, ignoring the boats of black people. Even when policies aren't intentionally punching holes in the boats of black people, they still get swamped by the rising tide.

I don't particularly blame them for not believing it when rich white people say, "no, we won't be racist this time."

Can you give a post-WWII example of a policy of 'lifting boats' that ended up benefiting only white people?

I don't think there has ever been that policy. They tried to lift up the boats and when it benefitted black people it was never acknowledged.

I'm honestly not sure what point you're making here.

I ended up running through your post again to try and find a follow up.. I couldn't.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on April 09, 2019, 12:15:56 PM
Historically, trying to lift all boats turns into lifting whites-only boats and, at best, ignoring the boats of black people. Even when policies aren't intentionally punching holes in the boats of black people, they still get swamped by the rising tide.

I don't particularly blame them for not believing it when rich white people say, "no, we won't be racist this time."

Can you give a post-WWII example of a policy of 'lifting boats' that ended up benefiting only white people?

I believe the GI bill is the go to example.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 12:18:34 PM
Historically, trying to lift all boats turns into lifting whites-only boats and, at best, ignoring the boats of black people. Even when policies aren't intentionally punching holes in the boats of black people, they still get swamped by the rising tide.

I don't particularly blame them for not believing it when rich white people say, "no, we won't be racist this time."

Can you give a post-WWII example of a policy of 'lifting boats' that ended up benefiting only white people?

I believe the GI bill is the go to example.

I've heard those rumours before and assumed libs gonna lib but did they really give different benefits to blacks?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on April 09, 2019, 12:34:42 PM

I believe the GI bill is the go to example.

I've heard those rumours before and assumed libs gonna lib but did they really give different benefits to blacks?

It was more that the benefits weren't disseminated to black veterans, rather than the GI Bill itself discriminating.

Quote
Much of the disparity in the dissemination of G.I. benefits came from the efforts of Representative John Elliot Rankin, who argued for the bill to be “a matter of local control and states’ rights.” In many parts of the U.S., this allowed Veterans Administration counselors to push black veterans into vocational and trade schools instead of academic institutions. “[T]he counselors didn’t merely discourage black veterans. They just said no. No to home loans. No to job placement, except for the most menial positions. And no to college, except for historically black colleges, maintaining the sham of ‘separate but equal’…” According to Humes, 28 percent of white veterans went to college on the G.I. Bill, while only 12 percent of black veterans did so.

[...]

In the summer of 1947, three thousand VA home loans were issued in Mississippi, with only two of those loans being granted to black veterans.

https://daily.jstor.org/the-inequality-hidden-within-the-race-neutral-g-i-bill/


Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 09, 2019, 12:44:00 PM
Can you give a post-WWII example of a policy of 'lifting boats' that ended up benefiting only white people?

I believe the GI bill is the go to example.

I've heard those rumours before and assumed libs gonna lib but did they really give different benefits to blacks?

Same benefits, the "GI Bill" even as recently as the Montgomery GI Bill was acknowledged as having problems, in that most service members didn't use much, or any of it before the benefit expired.

Post 9/11 GI-Bill lasts 15 years instead of the 10 previously allowed, and whatever they're calling the current iteration is supposed to last a lifetime now. They've also adjusted the nature of the compensation and the dollar amounts involved. (36 months of actual benefits though, unless other arrangements are in place)

Montgommery had issues at the end of its run(about 2007) where College Tuition rates had become so expensive in most states that the GI Bill alone wasn't enough to pay for tuition in many states, never mind anything else.

Post 9/11 on to present day has changed that to a large degree. GI Bill now pays the "in state tuition" rate for "your home state"(Somebody should double check, but I think that is determined by the state you move to after ending your term of service), gives out an allowance for books and school supplies, and also gives an additional housing allowance based on the BAH housing rate for the area. (I forget which paygrade is involved there)

So they've basically bolstered the GI Bill by a LOT over the past decades. But that doesn't the GI Bill was particularly effective prior to then.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 09, 2019, 12:45:11 PM
I believe the GI bill is the go to example.

I don't know much about it, but just read a bit of a synopsis about why it didn't help blacks much compared to whites. I guess the question to ask is twofold: 1) Whether it was a problem in implementation that causes this discrepency, or whether it was other factors in society? 2) Whether a bill specifically for veterans should count as being an umbrella policy to help deal with poverty in general.

But I see your point: if you offer something that realistically can't be used by racial minorities then it effectively isn't for them. How that should apply to something like a UBI, for instance, I can't tell, since a UBI (just as an example) doesn't have any conditions to be met. The GI bill, by contrast, required college acceptance, banks to cooperate, and other parties that on an individual basis could discriminate even if the bill itself was non-discriminatory. But I also read about the HCBU's, which are another issue altogether, and were an existing infrastructure that might have made things worse.

If, indeed, the GI Bill was understood as being a program to genreally help the impoverished then I could see the argument it didn't help everyone equally. But was it really meant to be that? In any case, that was a very long time ago. Have their been other umbrella programs in the post-Jim Crow era, maybe the last 40 years, that have tried something umbrella-ish and seemed to not help minorities? I ask for a more recent example because I'd like to know if there are actual initiatives in the living memory of current voters that would make them think that general initiatives leave them feeling left out.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on April 09, 2019, 12:47:54 PM
Historically, trying to lift all boats turns into lifting whites-only boats and, at best, ignoring the boats of black people. Even when policies aren't intentionally punching holes in the boats of black people, they still get swamped by the rising tide.

I don't particularly blame them for not believing it when rich white people say, "no, we won't be racist this time."

Can you give a post-WWII example of a policy of 'lifting boats' that ended up benefiting only white people?

I don't think there has ever been that policy. They tried to lift up the boats and when it benefitted black people it was never acknowledged.

I'm honestly not sure what point you're making here.

I ended up running through your post again to try and find a follow up.. I couldn't.

The point is that PoC believe they have reason to be skeptical of "race-neutral" welfare programs. Which is why certain parts of the Democratic party is side-eyeing some Sander's proposals.

ETA: Fenring, I think "my father/grandfather got screwed out of the GI Bill" is still going to have meaning for a lot of people.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 09, 2019, 12:50:09 PM
If, indeed, the GI Bill was understood as being a program to genreally help the impoverished then I could see the argument it didn't help everyone equally. But was it really meant to be that? In any case, that was a very long time ago. Have their been other umbrella programs in the post-Jim Crow era, maybe the last 40 years, that have tried something umbrella-ish and seemed to not help minorities? I ask for a more recent example because I'd like to know if there are actual initiatives in the living memory of current voters that would make them think that general initiatives leave them feeling left out.

If Andrew Yang is to be believed, Government Workforce (Re)Training initiatives have only been about 15% effective without respect to race. And given where a lot of those initiatives tended to be setup for(poor impoverished areas, that were likely to have significant minority presence, well..)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 09, 2019, 01:37:29 PM
have only been about 15% effective without respect to race

Sorry, what does this clause mean?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 09, 2019, 01:45:36 PM
have only been about 15% effective without respect to race

Sorry, what does this clause mean?

Added by me, so not a whole lot. He just simply said the retraining plans were about 15% effective, and made no mention of race or other factors, so unless he was masking things to appeal to a wider (Libertarian) audience for that particular interview, it's probably universal for everybody who has participated in those programs.

I'd expect a racial breakdown would likely have interesting results, but I wouldn't be surprised to see outcomes outside what people might expect from the start.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 09, 2019, 02:45:52 PM
A lot of people in those retraining programs are going through the motions to continue to qualify for payments contingent on going to training.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 03:10:38 PM
Is it not possible to say that these issues with the GI Bill were either built in or didn't account for economic inflation and go from there?

To blame future congresses that didn't acknowledge and/or take the issue on?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 03:14:37 PM
Because the GI Bill looks like a remarkably progressive act of legislation on it's face.

Sure, it helps poor people by having them volunteer to get blown the hell up. But...for it's day, it's pretty good.

Now, if we were talking about a similar bill these days I'd probably disagree, if only because I'm a bleeding heart lib who thinks you shouldn't have to volunteer to die to get all of that.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 03:25:12 PM
Just an of the cuff idea but could we not not make anyone over 18 automatically in the military, thus have them get those sweet GI Bill bennies without having to get into "socialism," then have everyone in the military be obligated to vote on whether we're going to go mess up Yemen?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 03:28:56 PM
I mean...Yemen? Whether it's officially us or just our "advisors" and "equipment." Read: missiles.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 03:35:31 PM
Hope those missiles didn't mess up too many weddings. Or mess up the famine our "allies" are fixing to put on them in.. Those same allies that bankrolled 9/11 btw.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 03:45:03 PM
Oh dear. I feel like a Republican. There was something in the the back of my head nagging about us helping the Saudis in their Yemen thing, and then I remembered, children been dieing there since like 2016.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_Yemen_(2016–present)

If it brings us all together, by all means, let's blame this on Obama.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 05:17:29 PM
Edited to remove a sarcastic comment, I guess the forum software doesn't support posting that, use Google or add the second bracket to get to that particular Wikipedia article.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 09, 2019, 05:40:05 PM
Oh dear. I feel like a Republican. There was something in the the back of my head nagging about us helping the Saudis in their Yemen thing, and then I remembered, children been dieing there since like 2016.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_Yemen_(2016–present) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_Yemen_(2016–present))

If it brings us all together, by all means, let's blame this on Obama.

Edited to remove a sarcastic comment, I guess the forum software doesn't support posting that, use Google or add the second bracket to get to that particular Wikipedia article.

It does support it, you just have to know the right magic tricks. Automatic Link Generation isn't completely reliable.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 05:47:40 PM
Cheers mate.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 06:02:50 PM
Just saying guys. The Yemen deal is really, really bad. They've decided to win the war by starving a population to death.

And the Western world and it's militaries seem to be either down with that or actively helping.

What the actual hell.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 06:06:14 PM
Even if we're gonna get a bit racist and say ""Arabs gonna Arab," and help out our buddies, the one's we're helping literally did 9/11 and we're  helping to starve children to death! What?!?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 06:08:09 PM
Sorry guys I'm kind of on a bender atm. You know how I do.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on April 09, 2019, 06:53:48 PM
I got off on a tagent here and I apologize. (Used the z. Had to overwhelm the spellchecker.)

I promise I will shut up now. I honestly prefer to be the liberal version of Cherry who pops up now and then with a good point. And then the conservative version of Seriati either shuts me down with a good argument that I can't be defend against or I can't even be arsed arguing a winning argument out because I'm just dicking around.

Then it was the anniversary. Of a bad time. So I've been drinking for a few days. In a relatively controlled way, because how else can you go on a bender when you're an insulin dependent diabetic? Don't get me wrong, it could still go real bad. I'm I'm the UK and they help me get the good insulin so I'll be fine.

So I've *censored* up the boards but I promise you, I'm done. This is the last one. Go back to your formally scheduled programming. It's so much fun seeing MSN vs. Fox on a regular basis just in a message board format.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 09, 2019, 07:19:12 PM
Have a good sleep and hope you feel better!
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on April 10, 2019, 04:30:04 PM
One question: if Trump has so strongly condemned white nationalism, just like every President before him, why haven't the white nationalists responded?

I mean, Obama condemned white nationalists, and they weren't too pleased with him.  They wrote articles condemning him.  They hated him and let everyone know it.

So where are the articles condemning Trump?  Where do white nationalists say he's a traitor to their country and their cause?  Where do they spew their hatred on him?

I mean, it's not like white nationalists are shy about talking about who they hate.  Who their enemies are.  Who they think aren't with them.  Who they would like to see die.

So why haven't I seen any reporting about how the white nationalist movement hates Trump?  Is the MSM not reporting it?  Or does it not exist?

And if not, why not?  I know white nationalists don't believe everything the MSM and left say.  They're pretty independent thinkers in that respect. :)  So why don't they, apparently, think Trump is condemning them?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 10, 2019, 04:48:14 PM
They could be trying to co-opt legitimacy by trying to associate with Trump, in an attempt to gain new support from within the group of people who support Trump.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 10, 2019, 05:00:26 PM
So you are asking, why after the media has buried Trump's anti-bigot statements and overplayed his ambiguous statements are there not more widely published accounts from racists decrying him?

On what world does that ask make sense?

First of all, racists are deficient thinkers prone to internalize nonsensical and unproven beliefs and ignore contrary evidence.  Our media seems to have adopted this trait.  in this case, it means they may very well believe Trump is on their side cause they read it in the media.  It's still a ridiculous assertion, that the lack of media coverage of the such position pieces should be considered some kind of warped proof that Trump supports them.

Second, I have no belief that you've spent any time looking into what racists are actually saying, I know I haven't.  Where exactly would this condemnation come from and who would find it?  The media's incentives are flat out to find and publish that which supports the story they want to tell.

Third, we have a binary system.  No one supports their positions on the issues they care about, because neither party supports racism.  They still are going to vote for someone, and in fact, virtually all the research shows the support of actual white racists in about equal in each of the parties.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 10, 2019, 06:06:45 PM
It's not hard to find, the press isn't scouring the Earth to find out what David Duke says, and I think you can probably assume that a large number of white nationalists follow his lead.

Quote
"Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa," Duke tweeted after the news conference.

Then after Trump's cleanup speech:

Quote
"I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists," Duke tweeted.

By criticising the Alt-Right & not naming BLM/Antifa you have given them the permission to destroy. The Red Terror begins.
 

Quote
"To get elected today you can't really speak straightforwardly and totally honestly. If you do you're going to be crucified," Duke said as he explained that he understood why Trump felt he needed to condemn white supremacists.

"You had to come out and say I condemn all these people," Duke said. "President Trump please, for God's sake, don't feel like you've got to say these things. It's not going to do you any good. They hate you."

I'm not claiming anything about what Trump thinks of them in return, nor that they like him because he is one of them.

Again, in Duke's words:

Quote
I wouldn't say Donald Trump is a champion for white America, I think he shares a lot of the issues and values of white America.

I can't recall too many politicians who get Duke's enthusiastic approval. Certainly not Mitt Romney, against whom Duke would run.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on April 11, 2019, 01:07:10 PM
So you are asking, why after the media has buried Trump's anti-bigot statements and overplayed his ambiguous statements are there not more widely published accounts from racists decrying him?

No, you misunderstand me.  I'm asking if there are any such published articles decrying Trump, not whether they are widely published or not.  And if not, why aren't there any such articles.

Quote
First of all, racists are deficient thinkers prone to internalize nonsensical and unproven beliefs and ignore contrary evidence.  Our media seems to have adopted this trait.  in this case, it means they may very well believe Trump is on their side cause they read it in the media.  It's still a ridiculous assertion, that the lack of media coverage of the such position pieces should be considered some kind of warped proof that Trump supports them.

First, why do you believe that white nationalists give any credence to the MSM?  They are some of the first ones to call them liars and spreaders of "fake news."  I would think any assertion by the MSM would be challenged and checked by white nationalists.

Second, why would you disbelieve them?  If the MSM says that Trump supports white nationalists, and white nationalists (who hate the MSM and do not support them in any way) say he supports them, and do not denounce him (as they do the MSM and everyone else who they fell is their "enemy"), isn't this an indication that they may be both right?  When two disparate sources come to the same conclusion, doesn't that indicate to you that they may both be on the right track?

Quote
Second, I have no belief that you've spent any time looking into what racists are actually saying.  I know I haven't.  Where exactly would this condemnation come from and who would find it?  The media's incentives are flat out to find and publish that which supports the story they want to tell.

No, I am not familiar with what the racists are saying.  Which is why I'm asking if there are such articles condemning Trump.

And while "the media's incentives are flat out to find and publish that which supports the story they want to tell," remember that we don't have just one media in this country.  There is the entire Right Wing media, that wants to contradict what the Left Wing media says.  Don't you think your sources that remind you of Trump's anti-racist statements would find it helps to support the story they want to tell to point out the hatred white supremacists have for Trump?

Quote
Third, we have a binary system.  No one supports their positions on the issues they care about, because neither party supports racism.  They still are going to vote for someone, and in fact, virtually all the research shows the support of actual white racists in about equal in each of the parties.

Could you link to some of this research?  I haven't heard of this, and I am curious about it.

However, as The Drake quotes, David Duke's criticism of Trump is tepid at best, and rather supportive all-in-all.  He certainly feels that he could talk to Trump and make an ally of him.

Compare it to his criticisms of the Left and (current) Democratic politicians.  Do you think he was so nice when talking about Obama, or Hillary?  Why does Obama's and Hillary's condemnations rankle white supremacists so much more than Trump's?

You discount reports of Trump being friendly toward white supremacists in the media because you believe it fits the media's narrative, and that the media is suppressing contradictory information.  But why would white supremacists tell the same story?  Why do they feel Trump is friendly towards them, if this friendliness is not real?  You think they don't recognize their friends from their enemies?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 11, 2019, 01:31:24 PM
Second, why would you disbelieve them?  If the MSM says that Trump supports white nationalists, and white nationalists (who hate the MSM and do not support them in any way) say he supports them, and do not denounce him (as they do the MSM and everyone else who they fell is their "enemy"), isn't this an indication that they may be both right?  When two disparate sources come to the same conclusion, doesn't that indicate to you that they may both be on the right track?

Absolutely not! Can you not see direct lines of interest here that would make them have separate reasons for saying the same thing? Of course white supremacists would like to make it known that they have support at high levels, to make it look like they're legitimized. And because of all the rhetoric levied against Trump they have the maneuvering room for their claim to look plausible to unsifting eyes. And for the MSM, whose main project for years has been to launch anything including the kitchen sink against Trump, of course they would take the opportunity to try to associate him with white supremacists. But the idea that because they're saying the same thing that therefore the position is given credence is exactly what the white supremacists are playing on. In other words, their plan is working on you. They win. By becoming a behemoth in your eyes, with the support of the President, no less, they go from being perceived as a trivial fringe element to being a giant monster looming on the horizon. And guess what works really well for recruiting: being able to tout that you're seen as an important group. That, along with the fact that the more disenchanted citizens feel like they're being lied to in the mainstream, the more likely they are to become radicalized or else move towards the fringe, to get away from the cesspool. Never mind that they end up even further from their own interests, but that's not how it seems to them.

Quote
Compare it to his criticisms of the Left and (current) Democratic politicians.  Do you think he was so nice when talking about Obama, or Hillary?  Why does Obama's and Hillary's condemnations rankle white supremacists so much more than Trump's?

I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but you have to see it from the perspective of groups like this. What's their best move to gain tractiona and attention? They can't just go live in the woods and forgo assocation in mainstream politics, because then they become a long-gone group to be forgotten. So they must pick a battlement and defend it. Their chosen one does seem to be the GOP side, and indeed you might well ask why that is. You might at the same time ask why 99% of hard-core constitutionalists and libertarians seem to be associated with the ring-wing these days. These facts are not unrelated to each other. White supremacists are almost certainly in close venn-diagram proximity with constitutionalist and "down with big government" groups, which in turn are also in close-ish proximity with the Tea Party type thinkers. This, more than any other reason, is the likely explanation behind why they swing right rather than left, as the mainstream voter of both parties likely doesn't want anything to do with them.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on April 11, 2019, 01:39:14 PM
Quote
Of course white supremacists would like to make it known that they have support at high levels, to make it look like they're legitimized.

Fair enough.  How can we tell the difference between white nationalists pretending to like Trump and pretending that he is supporting their views, and them actually liking Trump and believing he supports their views?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on April 11, 2019, 01:42:44 PM
BTW, as we all know, Trump likes to give demeaning nicknames to his opponents and those he doesn't like. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump)  What's his nickname for white supremacists?  :)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 11, 2019, 02:11:31 PM
Quote
Of course white supremacists would like to make it known that they have support at high levels, to make it look like they're legitimized.

Fair enough.  How can we tell the difference between white nationalists pretending to like Trump and pretending that he is supporting their views, and them actually liking Trump and believing he supports their views?

If you're asking for my assessment, it would be to ignore white supremacists wholesale. Just totally disregard anything they say and leave them alone. If they want to speak, or protest, let them, and don't give them any attention. It's the making them into a Goliath that makes them one. You don't need to parse whether they 'really' believe some statement they make or another. It just doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on April 11, 2019, 02:46:42 PM
Quote
Of course white supremacists would like to make it known that they have support at high levels, to make it look like they're legitimized.

Fair enough.  How can we tell the difference between white nationalists pretending to like Trump and pretending that he is supporting their views, and them actually liking Trump and believing he supports their views?

If you're asking for my assessment, it would be to ignore white supremacists wholesale. Just totally disregard anything they say and leave them alone. If they want to speak, or protest, let them, and don't give them any attention. It's the making them into a Goliath that makes them one. You don't need to parse whether they 'really' believe some statement they make or another. It just doesn't matter.

But here we're not giving attention to their political views or influence, but rather their beliefs on who is their friend/supporter and who isn't.  They may be pipsqueeks, but their views can have dire consequences.  (Do I really need to Godwin this? ;) )

And who is a better judge of someone white supremacists consider to be a friend/ally, and who they consider to be an enemy, than the white supremacists themselves?  ;)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on April 11, 2019, 02:48:47 PM
But here we're not giving attention to their political views or influence, but rather their beliefs on who is their friend/supporter and who isn't.  They may be pipsqueeks, but their views can have dire consequences.  (Do I really need to Godwin this? ;) )

And who is a better judge of someone white supremacists consider to be a friend/ally, and who they consider to be an enemy, than the white supremacists themselves?  ;)

It sounds like you're saying you want to mostly ignore them, but to cherry pick their statements when it makes your nemesis look bad. Just ignore them, man.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 15, 2019, 05:30:37 PM
Quote
The media wrote Tiger off years ago. But he was not ready to be ushered off the stage.

At the top of his game in 2015, Tiger Woods won his fourth Masters Tournament. He took two Opens and two PGA Championships in the few years after that but then the troubled years hit hard.

Breitbart. Sneering at "the media" for getting their predictions wrong, while getting the year for Tiger's fourth Masters Tournament wrong by a decade (2005). He also took three open championships (2 Opens and 1 US Open) after that time, not two.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 02, 2019, 04:28:41 PM
Washington Post headline:

Quote
Facebook bans far-right leaders Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and others from its platforms as 'dangerous'

Far-right. All of them.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 02, 2019, 04:35:52 PM
Related:

Quote
Attorneys for Nicholas Sandmann filed a $275 million lawsuit Wednesday against NBCUniversal over its coverage of the Kentucky teen, accusing the network of creating a “false narrative” driven by its “anti-Trump agenda.”

The lawsuit, the third filed by the Sandmann attorneys against major media outlets, alleged that NBC targeted the Covington Catholic High School student in its reporting on his Jan. 18 encounter with Native American activist Nathan Phillips at the Lincoln Memorial.

“NBCUniversal created a false narrative by portraying the ‘confrontation’ as a ‘hate crime’ committed by Nicholas,” said the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

$275 million.  I hope he gets every penny of it.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on May 02, 2019, 04:36:22 PM
Louis Farrakhan is right wing? Since when?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 02, 2019, 04:38:06 PM
Louis Farrakhan is right wing? Since when?

I dunno, never see him at any of the meetings.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Pete at Home on May 10, 2019, 06:57:43 PM
Leftwit statisticians categorize the black Texas BLM Shooter as a "white right wing" male to fit their Trump Voters are worse than ISIS sophistry.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 27, 2019, 03:46:06 PM
Quote
Time Magazine columnist Ian Bremmer on Sunday tweeted a quote from President Donald Trump about North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un that quickly went viral — but it wasn’t real.

“President Trump in Tokyo: ‘Kim Jong Un is smarter and would make a better President than Sleepy Joe Biden.'” Bremmer wrote on Twitter.

Quote
Bremmer left the false post up for several hours before conceding he made up the quote and deleting the tweet, which he defended as “plausible.”

This lie went viral, retweeted by MSM reporters and thousands of others. Bremmer should be fired.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on May 27, 2019, 03:49:31 PM
made me laugh

“People think they can say anything and get away with it,” Trump tweeted Monday morning. “Really, the libel laws should be changed to hold Fake News Media accountable!”
Classic

Only trump gets away with saying anything.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on May 27, 2019, 03:55:27 PM
He should probably be fired.

If the statement hadn't been retracted would it be libelous?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on May 27, 2019, 04:37:32 PM
Quote
He should probably be fired.

Anyone who relies on Twitter for facts or truth is a fool.
If the main line media stopped reacting to and reporting Tweets we would all be better off
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 27, 2019, 04:43:55 PM
So what should they rely on?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on May 27, 2019, 05:09:28 PM
Quote
So what should they rely on?

Not Twitter. Twitter is a game people play to make them feel important.

Trumps uses of Twitter to communicate policy - except for when its not... would undermine anyone else trying to use it that way.

If I have any advice for anyone running against Trump it would be not to engage with him, never resort to making fun of him or the like and never ever reply to his tweets  That's his sandbox your won't win stick to policy

Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on May 27, 2019, 05:09:40 PM
Quote
He should probably be fired.

Anyone who relies on Twitter for facts or truth is a fool.
If the main line media stopped reacting to and reporting Tweets we would all be better off

I could say the same about any media source now. And yet we rely on all of them.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on May 27, 2019, 05:25:18 PM
Quote
I could say the same about any media source now. And yet we rely on all of them.

Do yo really rely on all of them?

This is were discernment comes in.  Be very conscious of the difference between - news, opinion, editorial and speculation.
When it comes to Trump its just best to avoid anything he says about other peoples personalities or anyone who tries to engage with him on that level.   
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 28, 2019, 08:04:14 AM
When it comes to Trump its just best to avoid anything he says about other peoples personalities or anyone who tries to engage with him on that level.

The same can be said of any reporter or on air personality from CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NYT. The organizations they represent are the same.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 28, 2019, 08:17:57 AM
Quote
I could say the same about any media source now. And yet we rely on all of them.

Do yo really rely on all of them?

So what should he rely on?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on May 28, 2019, 09:54:11 AM
Fenring can rely on Fenring.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on May 28, 2019, 10:07:50 AM
When it comes to Trump its just best to avoid anything he says about other peoples personalities or anyone who tries to engage with him on that level.

The same can be said of any reporter or on air personality from CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NYT. The organizations they represent are the same.

Isn't that what I said - it would be best if everyone avoid responding/reacting to anything personal Trump says about others. Don't play in his sandbox unless you want sand in your eyes

Do we really care the Trump agreed with Kim Jong Un who was agreeing with Trump about someones IQ - is that a "news" story we should spend time on?
Even if Kim was endorsing Trump for president other then being inappropriate for a foreign leader to interfere that way, maybe that ok now.. Lets talk about someone tweeting something foolish instead and sue his ass
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 28, 2019, 11:49:50 AM
Fenring can rely on Fenring.

If you meditate on this long enough, you will achieve total enlightenment.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on May 28, 2019, 12:07:21 PM
Fenring can rely on Fenring.

We have arrived at the nexus of the universe.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on May 30, 2019, 01:35:45 PM
Quote
So what should they rely on?

Not Twitter. Twitter is a game people play to make them feel important.

Trumps uses of Twitter to communicate policy - except for when its not... would undermine anyone else trying to use it that way.

If I have any advice for anyone running against Trump it would be not to engage with him, never resort to making fun of him or the like and never ever reply to his tweets  That's his sandbox your won't win stick to policy

I dunno about that. I honestly think if a left winger went into the trenches and started giving grade school nicknames to Trump on the lines of "Crooked" or "Sleepy" he would lose his sh*t.

I'm actually willing to believe that Trump didn't tell people to hide the McCain navy ship because I can totally see the people around him getting really, really nervous if he saw it, and what it would prompt him to say.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on May 30, 2019, 01:45:56 PM
Quote
So what should they rely on?

Not Twitter. Twitter is a game people play to make them feel important.

Trumps uses of Twitter to communicate policy - except for when its not... would undermine anyone else trying to use it that way.

If I have any advice for anyone running against Trump it would be not to engage with him, never resort to making fun of him or the like and never ever reply to his tweets  That's his sandbox your won't win stick to policy

I dunno about that. I honestly think if a left winger went into the trenches and started giving grade school nicknames to Trump on the lines of "Crooked" or "Sleepy" he would lose his sh*t.

I'm actually willing to believe that Trump didn't tell people to hide the McCain navy ship because I can totally see the people around him getting really, really nervous if he saw it, and what it would prompt him to say.

Remember when Rubio tried to beat Trump at his game? Sad.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on May 30, 2019, 02:07:23 PM
Quote
So what should they rely on?

Not Twitter. Twitter is a game people play to make them feel important.

Trumps uses of Twitter to communicate policy - except for when its not... would undermine anyone else trying to use it that way.

If I have any advice for anyone running against Trump it would be not to engage with him, never resort to making fun of him or the like and never ever reply to his tweets  That's his sandbox your won't win stick to policy

I dunno about that. I honestly think if a left winger went into the trenches and started giving grade school nicknames to Trump on the lines of "Crooked" or "Sleepy" he would lose his sh*t.

I'm actually willing to believe that Trump didn't tell people to hide the McCain navy ship because I can totally see the people around him getting really, really nervous if he saw it, and what it would prompt him to say.

Remember when Rubio tried to beat Trump at his game? Sad.

Fair enough. Best timeline is where Bernie is out there with the nomination and AOC is triggering Trump on twitter by calling him names.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DJQuag on May 30, 2019, 02:10:42 PM
He's got an extremely thin skin, if only about the things that matter to him as a narcissist. I guarantee if someone high profile started referring to him as "Bankrupt" Trump he'd lose his rag.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: ScottF on May 30, 2019, 03:00:45 PM
He's got an extremely thin skin, if only about the things that matter to him as a narcissist. I guarantee if someone high profile started referring to him as "Bankrupt" Trump he'd lose his rag.

He’s a counter puncher. Playing his game would be a really bad idea.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on May 30, 2019, 05:05:10 PM
A counter puncher that love's the role of victim
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on May 30, 2019, 07:30:28 PM
I don't know, I'd be feeling pretty victimized if I got elected President, only to have my administration tied up with an investigation that I KNEW was bogus for two years, especially after, against my better judgment, I was convinced to let it run it's course and cooperate with it.  After I'd made millions of pages of privileged materials available as well as hours and hours of interviews with executive staff available to the investigation, and never once prevented the investigators from doing whatever they deemed necessary (even when they appeared to be trammeling the Constitution by seizing one of my lawyers records, abusing the use of swat teams, and attempting to suborn witnesses into making false statements), only to be faced with 2 more years of trumped up "obstruction" charges.

Or where I've had 50+ district court decisions overrule executive policy, including on items that are exclusively under the executive branches control per the Constitution, items where Congress expressly granted the executive branch full discretion, items where I restored policies that had been in place for decades or even longer prior to my predecessor, and items where my predecessor acting by executive fiat and I wanted to unwind them.

I might be feeling like the "system" was attempting to crush the outsider that the people elected to clean it up and rather victimized.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: ScottF on May 30, 2019, 08:13:46 PM
Not to mention the incredible stream of leaks since day one. He does bring a lot of it on himself but I think such a concerted and sustained effort to "get" a president is unprecedented.

It's going to be fascinating to see if it's kept up through his second term.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Pete at Home on May 30, 2019, 09:24:11 PM
The problem with veterans coming home to lives of poverty and crime goes back thousands of years. It started multiple Roman Civil wars, was the primary cause for 20th century fascism... That's what the GI bill prevents. It takes the most ambitious,  intelligent, leadership capable veterans and gives them a hand up. Those who have seen Rome, season one episode 11 might call it the Lucius Vorenus program.  Given the size and scope of our military it's a remarkably cheap way of staving off whiskey rebellions.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2019, 06:49:32 AM
I think this is exactly what you get when you don't follow established norms, don't build consensus, and generally antagonize large numbers of people. Add to that, not knowing the rules for public service and surrounding yourself with more of the same.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on May 31, 2019, 09:31:22 AM
I don't think that holds water TheDrake.  The leaks started before he took office, heck President Obama even deliberately changed how classification worked to ensure that leakable materials would be widely circulated.

Trump is primarily a threat to the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy has been what's behind the biggest attacks made on him. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2019, 10:15:14 AM
And you think he wasn't breaking norms before he took office? You could start with not divesting businesses, and then you could look at putting people in charge of agencies who were openly critical of those agencies and some who even questioned their existence.

Quote
Trump is primarily a threat to the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy has been what's behind the biggest attacks made on him.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Trump went in wanting to break the wheel and was willing to do whatever was necessary to accomplish that. He wasn't interested in working with people to gradually reform those agencies. He was happy to openly criticize them, like the intelligence agencies, FBI, etc.

It's why he's loved and hated, regardless of what side one comes down on, it is a radical departure and bound to cause volatility. When you question the competence, value, and purpose of enough people, you are going to get leaks, resistance, resignations, and inertia.

I'm not making an absolute value judgement. Sometimes a turnaround requires burning out everyone who can't get on board with the new plan. Protected career civil servants are not as easy to wipe out, however, and are protected precisely to avoid radical shifts and politically motivated demolition. Imagine if everybody at the EPA could be wiped away and replaced with people from oil, gas, and chemical industries - instead of just the head guy.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on May 31, 2019, 10:40:02 AM
Wasn't the EPA the agency where the staffers tried to create a "shadow" disclosure regime for the "real EPA"? 

The "norm breaking" you're citing really isn't "before he took office," honestly, you can't appoint heads to agencies before you take office.  And seriously, the idea that someone trying to reform bureacracy would appoint from within it is just silly.  When Trump appoints an outsider, the immediate story was about how they were unqualified - specifically because they didn't have inside the agency norms - whereas when Obama did it the immediate story was about how they were a visionary bringing new ideas to the agency.

Trump has been victimized, he's also victimized others. 

But it's pretty clear that the "rules" that others apply to Trump are not the same that applied to Obama.  Obama says, I can't reform immigration acting alone, then goes ahead and creates DACA by exercising his enforcement discretion, Trump comes along, correctly states that as DAPA was ruled unConstituional DACA is also very likely unConstitutional and I will be exercising my enforcement discretion to unwind it.  Gets enjoined.  In what world are they treated the same, when Obama's unConstitutional action is given more weight than Trump's Constitutional action?  In the worst case, Trump has to have at least as much Executive Authority as Obama, yet, that's not how it was applied.

Obama's IRS targets conservatives, officials plead the fifth, every effort is made to prevent disclosure.  Not obstruction.  Trump is attacked by a false claim that his campaign colluded with the Russians, spied on, investigated for two years by a team made up solely of his political enemies, that he cooperates with fully (except for not personally sitting for an interview - which given the gotcha interviews they were running is entirely sensible), and is labelled with "obstruction" that relies on a theory of obstruction that was specifically written to prevent an Arthur Anderson style destruction of records (you really should look at Barr's memo if you haven't already).  Or how about how Hillary destroyed emails that were the subject of a subpeona?  Trump is "obstructing" justice by venting to his White House counsel about how Mueller has conflicts (which he does) but Hillary wasn't by destroying her hard drives?

I get hating Trump.  I don't get applying such completely different standards.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2019, 12:44:44 PM
I don't agree with your interpretations about what is or isn't constitutional, but we have courts to decide that. We could rehash many debates from the past, but that's my basic position. As I've stated before, Hillary knew how to better obscure and obfuscate. That either makes her more innocent, or simply an effective mob boss, but either way it leaves her less vulnerable. Maybe getting charitable contributions for her organization is as bad as having foreign dignitaries pay to stay in your hotels, but the legalities are more obscured.

Lots of leaders have gone into organizations and worked to reform them without smashing everyone to bits, or to install someone openly hostile to the organization's mission. It would be like making a union activist the CEO of Walmart.

Obama didn't enter office and immediately set to work dismantling everything Bush did. Naturally, the people who worked for eight years to put policy in place are not going to be too happy about having that work unraveled at the stroke of a pen. Some of those people are going to leak information, just like if you are an a-hole boss, some employees are going to steal from you.

Trump could have boiled the frog more gradually, but that's not his style and not what he promised.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 31, 2019, 03:21:38 PM

I get hating Trump.  I don't get applying such completely different standards.

About those double standards ... here's Obama (https://news.grabien.com/story-obama-brazil-audience-some-you-are-aware-our-gun-laws-united) who was in Brazil for the digital convention, VTEX Day, which took place Thursday in Sao Paulo:

Quote
"Some of you may be aware our gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense,” Obama said, “Anybody can buy any weapon any time — without much if any regulation, they can buy it over the Internet, they can buy machine guns."

That's just blatant lying. The guy is lying sack of *censored*. He knows this is not true but he just goes with it. This is a lie roughly of the same quality as a 5-year-old insisting he didn't run in the house and break the vase despite it all being caught on the home security system.

But these lies are OK, aren't they?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on June 02, 2019, 03:30:34 PM
Quote
That's just blatant lying. The guy is lying sack of *censored*. He knows this is not true but he just goes with it. This is a lie roughly of the same quality as a 5-year-old insisting he didn't run in the house and break the vase despite it all being caught on the home security system.

Which do you think are lies?

You can buy guns over the internet. 

https://www.midwayusa.com/buy-guns-online

You can buy machine guns in the US.

Quote
Under federal law, machine guns — considered automatic weapons — are tightly regulated but legal to own as long as they were made before May 1986 and are registered with the federal government.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/02/nevadas-lax-gun-laws-make-easy-assemble-gun-arsenals/723569001/

Perhaps,
Quote
Anybody can buy any weapon any time — without much if any regulation

Not quite "anybody" and not quite "any weapon" and not quite "any time".  - You probably can't buy a nuke, of course in the context we can assume he meant guns.  Most automatic weapons can be bought - but it does take a permit that can be a pain - I think that falls fairly under the 'without much ... regulation' - and they can only be bought used.  For "anybody" - are you upset because there are in fact legally prohibited people - would "nearly anybody" be acceptable to you?  For "any time" - I suppose there might be some places that have mandatory holidays that it can't be bought on.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on June 02, 2019, 05:41:00 PM
“ship it to your local FFL“

Clearly the buy guns on the internet meme is intended to imply that Amazon is just going to leave it at your doorstep.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on January 07, 2020, 04:42:24 PM
Related:

Quote
Attorneys for Nicholas Sandmann filed a $275 million lawsuit Wednesday against NBCUniversal over its coverage of the Kentucky teen, accusing the network of creating a “false narrative” driven by its “anti-Trump agenda.”

The lawsuit, the third filed by the Sandmann attorneys against major media outlets, alleged that NBC targeted the Covington Catholic High School student in its reporting on his Jan. 18 encounter with Native American activist Nathan Phillips at the Lincoln Memorial.

“NBCUniversal created a false narrative by portraying the ‘confrontation’ as a ‘hate crime’ committed by Nicholas,” said the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

$275 million.  I hope he gets every penny of it.

CNN settled their lawsuit with Sandmann today. The amount has not been made public but I'm betting it's enough to send Sandmann to any university he wants. Other lawsuits are moving forward and will likely fund his retirement. Fake news has a price tag.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on January 07, 2020, 04:50:14 PM
Wow.  How much do you think Biden will get for this video? (https://www.snopes.com/collections/debunker-01-06-2020/)

Or Obama for for this photoshopped picture? (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-shaking-hands-rouhani/)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on January 08, 2020, 04:17:31 PM
Depends, did CNN run it as true? Did other media outlets run them in heavy rotation and insist they were accurate?

Are Biden and Obama public figures or private?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Kasandra on January 08, 2020, 05:31:44 PM
Lucky that Conservatives and FOX News have star investigator James O'Keefe on their side to report his veritas. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on January 22, 2020, 03:49:11 PM
Okay, this isn't exactly a false claim, but it's still awful.

Quote
Wuhan coronavirus death toll rises, as city imposes transport lackdown

Lackdown? really CNN? Have you obsessed over Trump so much that you are writing headlines the way he tweets?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2020, 02:50:12 PM
Meanwhile in Breitbart world:

https://www.breitbart.com/

Headline screams:

CNN Cuomo Tests Positive for Coronavirus

But Will Continue To Anchor Show

Italics are theirs. Clearly trying to imply that he's going to the studio. The article clarifies later that he's working from home, as he has been.

From the comment section, close to the top:

Quote
This is irresponsible. Even if his work was essential, if he's positive for Covid 19 he should be in isolation on lockdown, the same expectation they have for the rest of us. And his work is definitely NOT essential.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: wmLambert on March 31, 2020, 04:38:37 PM
...Italics are theirs. Clearly trying to imply that he's going to the studio. The article clarifies later that he's working from home, as he has been.

No, The italics do not scream that he is breaking self-isolation. By now everyone knows you can continue working without being stupid about it. It takes someone with a personal agenda to assume the worst of those you don't particularly approve of. Editors always screw up their added headlines for articles. I think that is proof of the Peter Principle. The guys in charge should let the authors of an article set the headline.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2020, 04:42:33 PM
I wonder if you'd be so forgiving if it was about Trump.

Remember back when he refused to enter isolation after being exposed, and it remained unclear if he was even tested? I'll bet you beefed about articles in the MSM giving him a hard time for that.

Plus I already demonstrated that it misled at least one person without having to dig to find him.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: wmLambert on March 31, 2020, 05:41:43 PM
...Remember back when he refused to enter isolation after being exposed, and it remained unclear if he was even tested?

Why nitpick trying to find anything at all to denigrate the President? He has been polite and soft-spoken all during this crisis, yet listening to the news media, you'd think he's been spitting and shouting. Actually, he's been more accomodating to Mayors and Governors who have fought him tooth and nail since he was elected.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Kasandra on March 31, 2020, 06:00:20 PM
Quote
Why nitpick trying to find anything at all to denigrate the President?

"Nitpick" :D :D

Quote
He has been polite and soft-spoken all during this crisis

Woo-ha-ha-ha!  That is really good!  How many reporters has he insulted and attacked in just the past week?

Quote
Actually, he's been more accomodating to Mayors and Governors who have fought him tooth and nail since he was elected.

It really is all about him, isn't it?  In a dire emergency and crisis, he remembers who he thinks insulted in the past and makes sure to get even with them.

He's the President you want, but not the President the rest of us deserve.  You'll never understand that, but TWS rules!!
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2020, 08:50:45 PM
Quote
During a Fox News town hall filmed in the Rose Garden, Trump slammed Cuomo for not ordering ventilators years ago. The president pointed to reports that Cuomo, a Democrat, chose to ration the state’s supply of emergency ventilators rather than order more in 2015.

If that's accommodating I'd hate to see antagonistic.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2020, 11:25:45 AM
Quote
He has been polite and soft-spoken all during this crisis

Woo-ha-ha-ha!  That is really good!  How many reporters has he insulted and attacked in just the past week?

Zero people acting as reporters at the time they were 'insulted or attacked,' a very few acting as political opreratives though.

Quote
Quote
Actually, he's been more accomodating to Mayors and Governors who have fought him tooth and nail since he was elected.

It really is all about him, isn't it?  In a dire emergency and crisis, he remembers who he thinks insulted in the past and makes sure to get even with them.

Delusion, Kasandra is thy name.  Trump has been gracious with all of them.  DeBlasio literally went from refusing to close the schools (under pressure from advocates for the poor) and encouraging people to go to street fairs to the next day closing schools (under pressure from the teacher's union and Cuomo) and screaming about how Trump was killing everyone (and it's not his, DeBlasio's, fault), to panicking people left and right with bizarre announcements, and Trump has not only helped him, he's even said complementary things about him.  Trump has said complementary things about Gavin Newsome and Cuomo, both of whom are not remotely fans of his politically.

In fact I'm really glad Trump's been the bigger person and not the paranoid bogeyman you try to paint with your partisan fantasy.

Quote
He's the President you want, but not the President the rest of us deserve.  You'll never understand that, but TWS rules!!

I agree, you don't deserve him, but damn glad we have him, the death toll would have been much greater under Hillary, and heaven forbid if Biden had been President.  "They" would never have let Biden anywhere near this response, don't think anyone in America thinks Biden could handle this, and that says everything you need to know about why Biden shouldn't be President - which begs the question of why exactly he's the nominee of a major party?  Figure head?  Puppet?  What exactly?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: yossarian22c on April 01, 2020, 02:20:57 PM
...
I agree, you don't deserve him, but damn glad we have him, the death toll would have been much greater under Hillary, and heaven forbid if Biden had been President.  "They" would never have let Biden anywhere near this response, don't think anyone in America thinks Biden could handle this, and that says everything you need to know about why Biden shouldn't be President - which begs the question of why exactly he's the nominee of a major party?  Figure head?  Puppet?  What exactly?

I don't know why you think that about Hillary. Other than closing the border to China I don't see how Trump has managed this crisis well. Testing roll out in the US was poor, we are struggling to get enough PPE and medical supplies to hospitals and we were slow to recognize the spread and get big sections of the country (primarily NYC) shut down before the huge growth in cases occurred.

One thing I will say, the economy will recover better under Trump. Senate republicans would have never passed a 2 trillion dollar stimulus (running a 3 trillion dollar deficit for the year) under Hillary.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: ScottF on April 01, 2020, 02:34:08 PM
Testing roll out in the US was poor, we are struggling to get enough PPE and medical supplies to hospitals and we were slow to recognize the spread and get big sections of the country (primarily NYC) shut down before the huge growth in cases occurred.

One thing I will say, the economy will recover better under Trump. Senate republicans would have never passed a 2 trillion dollar stimulus (running a 3 trillion dollar deficit for the year) under Hillary.

I'll refrain from the Hillary/Trump comparison, but I'm not convinced the US was exceptionally slow or has performed poorly compared to other countries of similar size (geo and population). Compared to South Korea, Singapore, sure.

And I'm still waiting to hear opinions as to who's at fault for any PPE shortages.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2020, 03:22:10 PM
I don't know why you think that about Hillary.

Because virtually all the problems you've described below are directly traceable to government process and inertia getting in the way of solving a problem.  I have zero confidence that Hillary could have motivated the business community in the way Trump has, which has gotten them jumping at the chance to help.  More likely she'd have seized them as the Progressives are clamouring to have done and left the FDA process in place (which means we'd being doing less than a thousand tests a week at this point) and then lamented that she'd done all she can and that these things take time.  Fast track?  Bulldozing bureaucratic roadblocks?  Nope.  Instead of companies all pitching in and doing their best, their talent would have been replaced and wasted with  Washington bureaucrats.

The solution of the left is always more government, even when government itself is the problem.

Quote
Other than closing the border to China I don't see how Trump has managed this crisis well.

First of all, Trump took tremendous flack for that, and now it seems a no brainer.  What does that say about the brains that counseled against it?  Would the parties have flipped on that point?  Possible, could see Republicans crying about the economic consequences and leftists loving the totalitarian control of peoples movement, but it's not convincing to me that Clinton would have ordered a travel restriction.  A Clinton admin, would have been stuck fighting the last war with the bureaucrats in the FDA in control.

I mean heck, even Fauci if you listen to him talk about double blind studies doesn't seem to get it.  There's a time for a perfect process, and a time for a less perfect process.  Running a lengthly double blind study where you deliberately let some people die on a placebo to try and get an accurate result during a pandemic is a mistake.  It's science without considering the ramifications of the science.  Now would be the time to look at results based on time (use prior cases as a rough control, and compare different treatments to each other).  If you find something that seems to have markedly better results and is otherwise safe, why would you need a double blind study?  I note too, French authorities have now joined multiple other countries in making the drug cocktail Trump lauded the standard treatment protocol (and seem to think not including their results in your analysis as not "academic" is offensive).

Quote
Testing roll out in the US was poor....

it absolutely was, and is 100% the fault of the CDC and FDA process that refused to even consider expediting approvals and releasing control until they were bulldozed.  Keep in mind the process was targetted at limited clinical proofs of the infections - based, it appears on the flu identification process where you only need to identify strains to pick the targets for the ongoing vaccination program, rather than anything remotely designed to utilize mass testing to stop a plague.  It doesn't seem to have occurred to the CDC that there could have been a need or even a utility in being able to rapidly roll out hundreds of thousands of tests in short period of time.

That's 100% tied into the rigid, rigid controls that we've built out around the FDA and medicine.  You've heard me complain about it before, with industry estimates putting the price tag of bringing a new drug to market at something like $1.6billion after you go through the FDA process.

Normally thta's a mixed bag.  The FDA ensures we have the best quality of medicines in the world.  But they do that at a tremendous cost of time and process, which is exactly what we don't have during a pandemic, when "good enough" has to be "good enough."

Quote
...we are struggling to get enough PPE and medical supplies to hospitals...

Haven't really quoted it, but there's an interesting analysis of that, which seems to show that the medical reserve was depleted by the Obama administration during the couple health crisises they navigated and never restocked.  Would be moderately interested to see if that was true.

Its also one of those things that has really highlighted how unwise it's been to let China take over critical manufacturing processes.

I also find it interesting that some of this seems to be a state versus federal issue.  The federal equipment reserves are being held centrally so that they can send them to the localities that need them, meanwhile some of those localities that haven't been hit are demanding equipment to create their own reserves.  Even NY has apparently made demands to increase their warehouse of equipment so they can further apply it against future demands.  Trump's policy on this is the right one, the central reserve can't empty itself out based on future expectations that may never occur, when it needs to be ready to react to current demands.  When you hear states claiming a shortage of equipment, consider whether they really have a current need.

Quote
... and we were slow to recognize the spread and get big sections of the country (primarily NYC) shut down before the huge growth in cases occurred.

There's truth to that.  But much of that comes from no one having an accurate read on just how communicable the disease is.  I mean the Chinese claim to have slowed or stopped spread before the US numbers exploded.  Based on what we've seen that seems to be really suspicious.  Is it a lie?  Does it mean they really did create it?  Don't want to speculate too much, but if they really stopped it, I'm guessing they committed atrocities that the world may never hear about.

A big part of that is from people being stupid and not following directions, I mean there was super spreader party nearby in CT (it's been written about in national publications).  The articles say there were 50 guests, all rich, all world travellers (the local word is 200+ guests and catering and other staff on top - but they are lying to say they were under the 50 person guidance).  That one party has been the source of cases and clusters all over the state, country and even the world.  Spring breakers are another example of dumb behavior.  Lest you think that's old, they just had a story about Texas students that charted a flight to Mexico a week and a half ago where 30% came back infected.  Heck, when they first closed schools here a bunch of parents started scheduling physical playdates and posting these get togethers to their social media.

Oh, and it's important to remember, that notwithstanding our national focus, the federal government doesn't have the general authority to do much of what you might want or expect.  It was no mistake that when Trump spoke about "locking down" NY, NJ and part of CT, Cuomo immediately said it was beyond Trump's authority and would be a Civil War.  Cuomo can lock down NY and order it's schools closed, Trump can't.

Again, on the timeline you can see that what Trump has been saying is optimistic but generally an accurate reflection of what the responsible agencies were doing and saying.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2020, 03:49:13 PM
Quote
There's truth to that.  But much of that comes from no one having an accurate read on just how communicable the disease is.  I mean the Chinese claim to have slowed or stopped spread before the US numbers exploded.  Based on what we've seen that seems to be really suspicious.  Is it a lie?  Does it mean they really did create it?  Don't want to speculate too much, but if they really stopped it, I'm guessing they committed atrocities that the world may never hear about.

You seem to be implying that China secretly vaccinated a billion people? How otherwise would they have benefited from "creating it" in terms of stopping the spread through their population?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2020, 04:52:36 PM
No, doubt they didn't vaccinate their populace.  Most likely they went full on totalitarian and ruthlessly suppressed the entire region, including measures word of which hasn't leaked.  Whether they just had better intel than they shared or knew ahead of time how infections it would be doesn't change that.  Suspicion here just goes to exactly how ruthless they actually were.

If you want to go full out conspiracy theory, then they deliberately released it in an area they could control knowing enough about it's communicability to be able to set up effective firewalls that they knew the rest of the world couldn't emulate.  But since it hit them first they are above suspicion.  Then they sit back and watch it ravage the rest of the world and try to look like heroes by sharing medical supplies.  If it starts to slow or doesn't hit where they want, they can always reintroduce it to the areas they're looking to infect.  Since they already know how to stop it from transmitting, they should have fully effective border controls on having it reintroduced to their country.

Edited to Add:  All of this is conspiracy theory speculation.  I think you should ask yourself how would you tell the difference between an intentional ct on their part and an accident or random occurrence, and consider whether factors you see in the future are influential on that decision tree.  There may be nothing to it, but I can't say I trust the Chinese government and their history on this is filed with lies and cover up. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 01, 2020, 05:55:04 PM
Quote
There's truth to that.  But much of that comes from no one having an accurate read on just how communicable the disease is.  I mean the Chinese claim to have slowed or stopped spread before the US numbers exploded.  Based on what we've seen that seems to be really suspicious.  Is it a lie?  Does it mean they really did create it?  Don't want to speculate too much, but if they really stopped it, I'm guessing they committed atrocities that the world may never hear about.

You seem to be implying that China secretly vaccinated a billion people? How otherwise would they have benefited from "creating it" in terms of stopping the spread through their population?

No, the theory at present is that Covid19 is still spreading in China, but they've got news/information blackouts preventing word from getting out.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2020, 06:09:04 PM
Quote
There's truth to that.  But much of that comes from no one having an accurate read on just how communicable the disease is.  I mean the Chinese claim to have slowed or stopped spread before the US numbers exploded.  Based on what we've seen that seems to be really suspicious.  Is it a lie?  Does it mean they really did create it?  Don't want to speculate too much, but if they really stopped it, I'm guessing they committed atrocities that the world may never hear about.

You seem to be implying that China secretly vaccinated a billion people? How otherwise would they have benefited from "creating it" in terms of stopping the spread through their population?

No, the theory at present is that Covid19 is still spreading in China, but they've got news/information blackouts preventing word from getting out.

I'm almost certain that's the case. Or maybe they have no deaths from coronavirus because everyone who gets it dies of a gunshot wound, and then the test is reported negative because they can't cough on anyone. :P
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: wmLambert on April 01, 2020, 08:39:15 PM
...If you want to go full out conspiracy theory, then they deliberately released it in an area they could control knowing enough about it's communicability to be able to set up effective firewalls that they knew the rest of the world couldn't emulate.  But since it hit them first they are above suspicion.  Then they sit back and watch it ravage the rest of the world and try to look like heroes by sharing medical supplies.  If it starts to slow or doesn't hit where they want, they can always reintroduce it to the areas they're looking to infect.  Since they already know how to stop it from transmitting, they should have fully effective border controls on having it reintroduced to their country.

If you want full conspiracy theory, don't forget the unproven Internet claim that George Soros owns a pharmaceutical company in Wuhan.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: wmLambert on April 01, 2020, 10:13:38 PM
I just looked up the WuXi Pharma Tech Inc., that Soros owns. It is in Wuhan. I think he has his fingers in eleven different pharmaceutical companies. I looked up companies that George Soros owns, and found the eleven pharmaceuticals. Then I looked up the map of where WuXi is. Then I looked up where Wuhan is. Same spot on the map.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on April 02, 2020, 04:43:53 AM
Ohhh myy
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2020, 01:37:28 PM
 ;D that's a good one! April fool!
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: wmLambert on April 07, 2020, 05:28:35 PM
...I don't agree with your interpretations about what is or isn't constitutional, but we have courts to decide that.

Up until Trump started adding Constitutionally-based judges, there were always some available for Leftist activists to refer things to, who would stamp the activist view without sense or justice. Most things in the Constitution are very easy to understand, and the writings in the Federalist Papers underscore meaning.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 20, 2020, 10:19:47 AM
Interesting twitter thread from Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert and a pretty frigging smart guy:

Quote
Just had a fascinating conversation with my smartest friend who is also anti-Trump. He says he gets his news from CNN, MSNBC and the NY Times. So I tested him to see the quality of his general knowledge on the hydroxychloroquine story.

He had never heard that zinc has to be combined with hydroxychloroquine to be effective (or so the hypothesis goes). So he did not know the studies showing no effect without the zinc were not telling you much.

He was not aware that something like a quarter of doctors would prescribe hydroxychloroquine and zinc based on the situation and the risk assessment. He believed there was zero medical opinion agreeing with Trump.

He had never heard of "off-label" prescribing of meds, and that it is fairly normal. He believed any doctor doing such a thing was violating healthcare norms with "unproven drugs."

He was not aware the frontline healthcare workers (some not all) have been taking hydroxychloroquine (and probably zinc) for months.

He was not aware that multiple other countries are routinely prescribing hydroxychloroquine (and zinc I assume) and they have actual doctors there too.

He was not aware that the ONE time Trump's handling of the coronavirus departed from the opinion of experts (Fauci in particular), Trump was right: Closing travel from China. He believed Trump was ignoring experts.

I tried to explain to my friend that the news media pre-2016 sometimes said true things, but we no longer live in those times. I recommended he broaden his news sources so at least he is EXPOSED to the entire news. He resisted because, you know, FOX News blah, blah. Lost cause.
 
What fascinates me the most about this situation is that my friend is an Ivy League graduate and easily in the top-five-percent of well-informed people in society, and he pays attention to the news. He was shocked when I told him how much "news" (context) is kept from him.

If you think this is a criticism of the left, you're only partly right. I'm criticizing anyone who doesn't sample the news from both left and right. But I do observe that conservatives are far more likely to know the story on both sides because "mainstream" news is ubiquitous.

Also, my friend had never seen the Russian troll farm memes (which looked like a sixth grade project) so he actually believed those memes changed the election. No one who has seen them believes that.

He also believes that if 17 intelligence agencies say something is true, it's because all 17 independently looked into it. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that. In the real world, a few people in one agency have an opinion and the rest say it sounds good to them.

He also believed it is a fact that Russia hacked the DNC. It might be a fact. It might not. But we certainly don't KNOW it to be true.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on May 20, 2020, 10:58:56 AM
Quote
Interesting twitter thread from Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert and a pretty frigging smart guy:

Not sure what this proves? All people who disagree with trump = "anti-Trump" and all people who are 'anti-trump' are ill-informed = you win

I remember watching Bill Maher go after various evangelist to prove his point about religion.  He tended to go after the lowest fruit, the easy targets.
My bet is that your opinion on Scott Adams being a 'pretty frigged smart guy' would change if if politics changed. But sure enjoy out echo chamber
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on May 20, 2020, 01:16:10 PM
He had never heard that zinc has to be combined with hydroxychloroquine to be effective (or so the hypothesis goes). So he did not know the studies showing no effect without the zinc were not telling you much.

One theorized mechanism for theoretical benefit of HCQ is that it is an zinc ionophore.  That isn't the only theorized mechanism.  Quercetin is also a zinc ionophore and has none of the nasty side effects of HCQ.  So if that is the mechanism one is hoping to exploit, HCQ is absolutely not the medication you want to use.

Quote
He was not aware that something like a quarter of doctors would prescribe hydroxychloroquine and zinc based on the situation and the risk assessment. He believed there was zero medical opinion agreeing with Trump.

Doctors are tying all sorts of things.  Some doctors recommend homeopathy, others healing stones.  The willingness of some doctors to recommend something isn't an endorsement of the effectiveness of something.

Quote
He had never heard of "off-label" prescribing of meds, and that it is fairly normal. He believed any doctor doing such a thing was violating healthcare norms with "unproven drugs."

Many people are unaware of off label prescribing.  So not really surprising.  However off-label prescribing without solid evidence of efficacy can be malpractice.  So yes many of these doctors are violating healthcare norms and if a patient under their care died from arrythmia while taking HCQ - they are almost certainly going to lose a malpractice suit.

Quote
He was not aware the frontline healthcare workers (some not all) have been taking hydroxychloroquine (and probably zinc) for months.

Not really surprising - some healthcare workers also use homeopathic remedies (there are apparently 200,000 doctors who use homeopathy), energy bracelets etc.  With 10s of millions of healthcare workers you will find all sorts of beliefs.

Quote
He was not aware that multiple other countries are routinely prescribing hydroxychloroquine (and zinc I assume) and they have actual doctors there too.

Yep, people are succeptible to hope over evidence in every country.  Once studies revealed that it was much more dangerous than expected and had no benefit it has been abandoned.  Basically Raoult was a French researcher, so it got the most press and pressure to prescribe in France.

Quote
He was not aware that the ONE time Trump's handling of the coronavirus departed from the opinion of experts (Fauci in particular), Trump was right: Closing travel from China. He believed Trump was ignoring experts.

The WHO recommended quarantining all incoming travelers because travel bans from a particular location often result in people taking alternate routes through other countries (such as through the UK).  So Trump was indeed ignoring the experts.

Quote
What fascinates me the most about this situation is that my friend is an Ivy League graduate and easily in the top-five-percent of well-informed people in society, and he pays attention to the news. He was shocked when I told him how much "news" (context) is kept from him.

Nothing Adams said above was news worthy.  Nothing was 'being kept' from his freind.  Adams appears to be fairly ignorant himself.

Quote
If you think this is a criticism of the left, you're only partly right. I'm criticizing anyone who doesn't sample the news from both left and right. But I do observe that conservatives are far more likely to know the story on both sides because "mainstream" news is ubiquitous.

That is hilarious - conservatives are consistently the least informed about any topic - they are often worse informed than people who don't have any news source (ie 'conservative' sources actively disinform).

Quote
Also, my friend had never seen the Russian troll farm memes (which looked like a sixth grade project) so he actually believed those memes changed the election. No one who has seen them believes that.

Again - pure ignorance from Adams here.  There was an enormous variety of Russian disinformation campaigns - some of it was fairly transparent, others were highly sophisticated.  Transparent stuff is actually extremely effective on subset of the population. 

Quote
He also believes that if 17 intelligence agencies say something is true, it's because all 17 independently looked into it. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that. In the real world, a few people in one agency have an opinion and the rest say it sounds good to them.

Complete BS - the vast majority of agencies in wealthy western countries have independent sources in most governments.  They do use shared information, but they also vet stuff through their own sources.

Quote
He also believed it is a fact that Russia hacked the DNC. It might be a fact. It might not. But we certainly don't KNOW it to be true.

We know it far better than we know most things we consider to be facts. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

Adams may be smart, but he certainly hasn't applied it here.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 20, 2020, 01:25:09 PM
Quote
Interesting twitter thread from Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert and a pretty frigging smart guy:

Not sure what this proves? All people who disagree with trump = "anti-Trump" and all people who are 'anti-trump' are ill-informed = you win

I remember watching Bill Maher go after various evangelist to prove his point about religion.  He tended to go after the lowest fruit, the easy targets.
My bet is that your opinion on Scott Adams being a 'pretty frigged smart guy' would change if if politics changed. But sure enjoy out echo chamber

Your bet would be lost. Adams often says things I don't agree with but he usually backs it well. He's got a consistent and solid logic to much of what he says.

What's telling is that the whole thing is about the issues of an echo chamber which, since you disagree, you call it an echo chamber. The entire thing was about having limited your information intake and being very poorly informed and how you should reach out to other outlets for information: "I recommended he broaden his news sources so at least he is EXPOSED to the entire news". Of course, it's not surprising you would reject that message
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 20, 2020, 01:26:49 PM

Adams may be smart, but he certainly hasn't applied it here.

I know, I know. Anybody you disagree with is stupid. We get it.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on May 20, 2020, 01:43:51 PM

Adams may be smart, but he certainly hasn't applied it here.

I know, I know. Anybody you disagree with is stupid. We get it.

Aren't we all doing that?  Someone disagrees with us and not only are they wrong their stupid. That's the problem when things become polarized as either or. Anyone giving ground... well that's a slippery slope. Certainty is what matters, even if we are wrong, we are most certain that our wrong is right as its for the right reasons. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on May 20, 2020, 06:46:40 PM
He had never heard that zinc has to be combined with hydroxychloroquine to be effective (or so the hypothesis goes). So he did not know the studies showing no effect without the zinc were not telling you much.

One theorized mechanism for theoretical benefit of HCQ is that it is an zinc ionophore.  That isn't the only theorized mechanism.  Quercetin is also a zinc ionophore and has none of the nasty side effects of HCQ.  So if that is the mechanism one is hoping to exploit, HCQ is absolutely not the medication you want to use.

And?  The point wasn't that there may not be other zinc facilitators available, but rather those advocating hydroxychloroquine are primarily advocating it for early intervention (not death bed treatment) and in combination with zinc.  If you haven't heard this it is primarily because your primary news sources don't cover it.

Quote
Quote
He was not aware that something like a quarter of doctors would prescribe hydroxychloroquine and zinc based on the situation and the risk assessment. He believed there was zero medical opinion agreeing with Trump.

Doctors are tying all sorts of things.  Some doctors recommend homeopathy, others healing stones.  The willingness of some doctors to recommend something isn't an endorsement of the effectiveness of something.

You mean like recommending the use of quercetin?  Lol.  Again, point was that he didn't know of the rather common trend both in the use in the US and internationally for medical professionals to be taking it as a prophlatic against infection. Says nothing about whether it works, but it does hurt the hydoxychloroquine bad meme if medical providers are convinced enough to use it themselves.

So why wouldn't the friend be aware of it?  Again, choice of their news providers.  Meanwhile you mention homeopathic medicine, but you can find hundreds of CNN articles on that topic (I grant most negative, but not all).  Honestly, you seem to be trying to imply that any use of a medicine off label is somehow the same thing as shoving a healing rock up your rear.  It's not.  There's clinical support for use of off label medicines they just haven't gotten to the level of a medical trial proof (which given the expense in the US of that process makes sense - why spend a billion on verifying a medicine if articles can be published that cause doctors to prescribe it off label). 

It's kind of stunning to me though that after all the climate change threads and the overwhelming belief in the power of modelling, the left has completely ignored the power of those techniques to establish meaningful corrollations.  Yes, traditional medical trials are the way to establish causation, but the selective endorse - based on political convenience - of statistically relevant corrollations seems telling.

Quote
Quote
He was not aware that multiple other countries are routinely prescribing hydroxychloroquine (and zinc I assume) and they have actual doctors there too.

Yep, people are succeptible to hope over evidence in every country.  Once studies revealed that it was much more dangerous than expected and had no benefit it has been abandoned.  Basically Raoult was a French researcher, so it got the most press and pressure to prescribe in France.

Again what's your point?  Is there some reason that such news is not relevant?  The media pretends Trump is pushing an outlandish theory, you've analogized it to healing rocks.  Why would the fact that other countries' doctors and even their health authorities have reached the same conclusion about its potential to be useful not be something that is news?

I can't see any reason to not cover that.  When media instead limits their coverage to imply that Trump is an outlier and suppress all evidence that he is not, the media is actually lying about what is going on.

Quote
Quote
He was not aware that the ONE time Trump's handling of the coronavirus departed from the opinion of experts (Fauci in particular), Trump was right: Closing travel from China. He believed Trump was ignoring experts.

The WHO recommended quarantining all incoming travelers because travel bans from a particular location often result in people taking alternate routes through other countries (such as through the UK).  So Trump was indeed ignoring the experts.

That's a stretch even for you.  Medical authorities in the US have been all over this, and there is zero evidence that Trump has ignored them  in any way deterimental to the US response.  Again, the evidence is to the contrary that where he departed it was a better decision.  If you don't know that you've missed out on important information, and if you find that you believe the opposite you've just internalized false information.

Quote
Quote
What fascinates me the most about this situation is that my friend is an Ivy League graduate and easily in the top-five-percent of well-informed people in society, and he pays attention to the news. He was shocked when I told him how much "news" (context) is kept from him.

Nothing Adams said above was news worthy.  Nothing was 'being kept' from his freind.  Adams appears to be fairly ignorant himself.

Lol.  Everything he pointed out was "news worthy," it's hard to even fashion a sensible way to take your comment in a world where the petty is routinely determined to be newsworthy that information directly contrary to a false media narrative is not newsworthy.  It doesn't have to turn out to be true to be newsworthy, I mean we've suffered through 3 years of a Russian collusion story that was a total lie, was none of that newsworthy either?

Quote
That is hilarious - conservatives are consistently the least informed about any topic - they are often worse informed than people who don't have any news source (ie 'conservative' sources actively disinform).

So say studies written by leftist activist in academia designed to "prove" that point.  Really easy to claim conservatives are the "least" informed if you rate information levels by how well you repeat back information that CNN broadcasts without regard to whether that information is true or false.  The fact that you have to claim conservative sources lie to make your point is telling.  It's not that conservatives are misinformed, its that they disagree with liberal narratives.

I mean by golly, any one on the left that's ever repeated back some form of the Russian collusion being obvious or proven is someone that's completely misinformed.  Anyone that repeats back that the Obama Administration was scandal free - remarkably misinformed.  That entering into the Paris Accord helped the environment or pulling out hurt it - remarkably misinformed.   But if all you do is judge by the CNN position on these or dozens of other fake stories and false narratives your study will of course "prove" what you want to hear.

Quote
Quote
Also, my friend had never seen the Russian troll farm memes (which looked like a sixth grade project) so he actually believed those memes changed the election. No one who has seen them believes that.

Again - pure ignorance from Adams here.  There was an enormous variety of Russian disinformation campaigns - some of it was fairly transparent, others were highly sophisticated.  Transparent stuff is actually extremely effective on subset of the population.

Can you provide the evidence.  As far as I've seen most of the disclosed material came through the Mueller report, and that conclusively showed that the Russian troll influence was immaterial in scope compared to the actual spending by the campaigns, let alone the thousands of Americans that spent and the millions of Americans that tried to influence the election.

This is another one of those things that has become a tenant of faith for the left, that their complete failure to be exposed to anything objective whether from another news source or otherwise has let fester into a rock solid belief in a fake story.  Russian propaganda had no real effect on the election.

Quote
Quote
He also believes that if 17 intelligence agencies say something is true, it's because all 17 independently looked into it. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that. In the real world, a few people in one agency have an opinion and the rest say it sounds good to them.

Complete BS - the vast majority of agencies in wealthy western countries have independent sources in most governments.  They do use shared information, but they also vet stuff through their own sources.

Again, literal and documented reality.  You can find plenty of objective deep dives that show how the judgement on this was not independently reached.  That key conclusions were reached only by 2-3 or agencies and even then only by effectively small teams at those agencies.

The fact that you seem to think it's false says more about your lack of exposure to contrary news than about the reality behind the statement.

Quote
Quote
He also believed it is a fact that Russia hacked the DNC. It might be a fact. It might not. But we certainly don't KNOW it to be true.

We know it far better than we know most things we consider to be facts. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

In actual fact the "revealed" evidence is pretty much non-existant.  The FBI never looked at the servers, and Crowd Strike didn't verify they were hacked by the Russians.  There may be other evidence, but it largely consists of take our word for it claims by the CIA about it "fitting a pattern" or their opinions on who would have had to authorize it.

I am wondering though if you are using some kind of different definition of "facts" here.

Quote
Adams may be smart, but he certainly hasn't applied it here.

Or maybe you just proved his point.  You don't seem to have been exposed to much of reality or contrary evidence either.  Maybe it would behoove you to expand the sources you are reviewing.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on May 20, 2020, 07:32:37 PM
Quote
Can you provide the evidence.  As far as I've seen most of the disclosed material came through the Mueller report, and that conclusively showed that the Russian troll influence was immaterial in scope compared to the actual spending by the campaigns, let alone the thousands of Americans that spent and the millions of Americans that tried to influence the election.

I can't speak for Adams "friend", assuming he even exists and has been quoted correctly, but as to the assumption that this is not known is silly. What we all generally agree on is that Russia made the attempt and that people fell for it, and even wound up making plans to go to non-existent rallies. Nobody thinks this turned enough votes to decide the election, but that it did influence the election.

I'm certainly not going to plow through his other points, just based on this foolishness.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: ScottF on May 20, 2020, 08:33:37 PM

Adams may be smart, but he certainly hasn't applied it here.

I know, I know. Anybody you disagree with is stupid. We get it.

Aren't we all doing that?  Someone disagrees with us and not only are they wrong their stupid. That's the problem when things become polarized as either or. Anyone giving ground... well that's a slippery slope. Certainty is what matters, even if we are wrong, we are most certain that our wrong is right as its for the right reasons.

Not everyone.  Although we're all susceptible to that impulse. That said, I've seen a fairly recent pattern of certain folks feeling compelled to label sources as ignorant, lacking basic science knowledge, etc. Which is a shame because it detracts from what might be otherwise interesting counterpoints. If I end up being one of those - I expect to be called out on it.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: wmLambert on May 20, 2020, 10:26:44 PM
Interesting twitter thread from Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert and a pretty frigging smart guy:

Quote
...He also believes that if 17 intelligence agencies say something is true, it's because all 17 independently looked into it. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that. In the real world, a few people in one agency have an opinion and the rest say it sounds good to them.

That mention of 17 agencies resonated, and I remembered it was Clapper who said all 17 Intelligence agencies agreed with what he was pushing. He later was forced to admit the only people who supported his info were four minions, and he just sent it off to all the other agencies and claimed their suoort.

More confirmation: The Daily Caller said: "When Hillary Clinton claimed “17 intelligence agencies” agree on Russian meddling in the third presidential debate, a host of media outlets including The New York Times rated the claim as 100 percent true. Nine months later, those same outlets say the stat is obviously false, and there’s been a “simple” explanation as to why all along.

A closer look at how the claim survived and thrived over those nine months reveals a startling lack of skepticism in the press when it comes to the Russia narrative. The truth is the great majority of the 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community had nothing to do with the investigation and made no judgments about the matter."
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on May 20, 2020, 10:37:18 PM
And?  The point wasn't that there may not be other zinc facilitators available, but rather those advocating hydroxychloroquine are primarily advocating it for early intervention (not death bed treatment) and in combination with zinc.  If you haven't heard this it is primarily because your primary news sources don't cover it.

I've heard it recommended for early, for late, with zinc, without zinc, etc.  The evidence is thus far little or no benefit at all - and significant increased risk of death.  The 'research' supporting it has been horrendously flawed.  The research showing harm has generally been well done.

Quote
You mean like recommending the use of quercetin?

I didn't recommend quercetin, I said that if we wanted a zinc ionophore, then it would be far more logical to try a supplement than is GRAS (generally recognized as safe), rather than a medication with known serious side effects.  I also pointed out early on that death was expected with HCQ because the ezymes that metabolize it are oxygen dependent and thus a hypoxic individual is getting a much larger effective dose.

Quote
Lol.  Again, point was that he didn't know of the rather common trend both in the use in the US and internationally for medical professionals to be taking it as a prophlatic against infection. Says nothing about whether it works, but it does hurt the hydoxychloroquine bad meme if medical providers are convinced enough to use it themselves.

It wasn't a 'common trend' - the absolute numbers of medical professionals doing so was quite small.  The reality is that many doctors are extremely ignorant of science.  Only 20% can do basic bayesian reasoning - something that is absolutely mandatory to understanding things like drug treatment effectiveness.

Quote
So why wouldn't the friend be aware of it?  Again, choice of their news providers.

Because it isn't important.  WHy would they cover it? Medicine isn't a popularity contest - the evidence is overwhelmingly that HCQ is dangerous and shows little or no benefit.  There wasn't every any good evidence to think it might be useful.

Quote
Meanwhile you mention homeopathic medicine, but you can find hundreds of CNN articles on that topic (I grant most negative, but not all).

I'd be interested in you pointing to evidence of major news organizations doing news pieces supporting homeopathy.  It would be completely irresponsible of them to do so, just as doing article suggesting that HCQ had benefit before any serious studies showing such would be irresponsible.  Responsible journalists don't advocate for dubious medical claims.

Quote
Honestly, you seem to be trying to imply that any use of a medicine off label is somehow the same thing as shoving a healing rock up your rear.  It's not.

Off label use when there is good evidence (ie well done study supporting its usage) is responsible.  Off label use without such support is indeed esentially the same thing.  It is faith based rather than evidence based.

Quote
There's clinical support for use of off label medicines they just haven't gotten to the level of a medical trial proof (which given the expense in the US of that process makes sense - why spend a billion on verifying a medicine if articles can be published that cause doctors to prescribe it off label).

Completely agree, there just wasn't any such evidence for usage of HCQ.  There is legit off label usage, and dubious usage.  The evidence simply was never there to suggest we should even try HCQ. 

Quote
It's kind of stunning to me though that after all the climate change threads and the overwhelming belief in the power of modelling, the left has completely ignored the power of those techniques to establish meaningful corrollations.  Yes, traditional medical trials are the way to establish causation, but the selective endorse - based on political convenience - of statistically relevant corrollations seems telling.

There was no useful evidence supporting usage of HCQ.  Raoult's trials were horrendously done - he excluded the people who got seriously ill and died who were on HCQ when calculating his average viral load stuff.  The New York doctor was presenting an absurdity regarding how many cases he had treated, the reality was he was almost certainly misdiagnosing people who had colds and other minor illnesses.

Quote
Again what's your point?  Is there some reason that such news is not relevant?

Yes.  As I said above - responsible news organizations don't write about treatments that don't have evidence to support them.  They report only when there is adequately vetted evidence.  Of course I'm not saying that news organizations acted responsibly in their reporting on all COVID-19 stuff.  The idiotic claim of high rates of COVID-19 infections in California reporting was irresponsible.

Quote
The media pretends Trump is pushing an outlandish theory, you've analogized it to healing rocks.

He was pushing a theory without scientific support.  It was actually more dangerous than promoting healing rocks or homeopathy, since those can't kill you (well, homeoupathy can have contaminated water, but most preperations are unlikely to kill you).

Quote
Why would the fact that other countries' doctors and even their health authorities have reached the same conclusion about its potential to be useful not be something that is news?

The doctors didn't "reach the same conclusion".  In France, the French President was also pushing HCQ and the Raoult paper got a lot of coverage - so people pressured their doctors to prescribe it.  Just like in the US, patient pressure often results in them getting what they want.  Politicians desperate to be seen as doing something push dubious hope.  The vast majority of doctors who prescribed HCQ felt it had little or no benefit, but it was what the patient wanted.

Quote
I can't see any reason to not cover that.

Because such coverage would be irresponsible for a drug without evidence of benefit that has known dangerous side effects including a risk of death.  The coverage that it did get has probably resulted in more deaths.

Quote
When media instead limits their coverage to imply that Trump is an outlier and suppress all evidence that he is not, the media is actually lying about what is going on.

He was an outlier.  It wasn't viewed by most prescribing doctors as helpful, they were perscribing it due to patient pressure not out of expectation that it would help.  France was using it because of politics and desperation for hope, not science.

Quote
That's a stretch even for you.  Medical authorities in the US have been all over this, and there is zero evidence that Trump has ignored them  in any way deterimental to the US response.  Again, the evidence is to the contrary that where he departed it was a better decision.  If you don't know that you've missed out on important information, and if you find that you believe the opposite you've just internalized false information.

No, he departed in a worse decision.  The expert advice was quarantine, instead of travel bans.  We implemnted travel bans but not quarantines.  So all of the US citizens who returned to the US did massive spread of infections.  Similarly the travelers from other countries and through other routes that weren't banned resulted in the infection still spreading about the same as countries who did neither travel bans nor quarantine.

Quote
Lol.  Everything he pointed out was "news worthy," it's hard to even fashion a sensible way to take your comment in a world where the petty is routinely determined to be newsworthy that information directly contrary to a false media narrative is not newsworthy.  It doesn't have to turn out to be true to be newsworthy, I mean we've suffered through 3 years of a Russian collusion story that was a total lie, was none of that newsworthy either?

Everything reported on and suspected about Russia was accurate.  There was the meeting with the Russian lawyer by Trump Jr. and other Trump high level campaign members. It was deemed that Trump Jr. and others might plead lack of knowledge of the relevant law and thus the case wasn't strong enough to garuntee a conviction.  There were meetings with Trump campaign members and Russia.  Stone definitely colluded with Russia (via the GRU under the name Guccifer) and coordinated with the Trump campaign.  However there wasn't specific evidence of whether the Trump campaign had knowledge of Stones working with Russia.

Quote
So say studies written by leftist activist in academia designed to "prove" that point.

Ah yes, the liberal/academic/leftist/media conspiracy

Quote
The fact that you have to claim conservative sources lie to make your point is telling.  It's not that conservatives are misinformed, its that they disagree with liberal narratives.

Facts aren't a 'liberal narrative'.  There is objective reality even if you choose to ignore it.

Quote
I mean by golly, any one on the left that's ever repeated back some form of the Russian collusion being obvious or proven is someone that's completely misinformed.

BS.  There was plenty of evidence that it happened but it was felt those for whom we had evidence of them doing so, could plead ignorance of the law, so they weren't prosecuted.  Ignorance was an affirmate defense against the charges that would have been brought.

Here is an excerpt from the Mueller report,

Quote
The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban . . . solicitation of an illegal foreign-source contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of “an express or implied promise to make a [foreign-source] contribution” . . . There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a “thing of value” within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted “willfully,” i.e. with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation.

So they didn't think they had enough evidence to prove that the acted willfully, but they absolutely had evidence that it happened.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on May 21, 2020, 12:56:09 AM
And?  The point wasn't that there may not be other zinc facilitators available, but rather those advocating hydroxychloroquine are primarily advocating it for early intervention (not death bed treatment) and in combination with zinc.  If you haven't heard this it is primarily because your primary news sources don't cover it.

I've heard it recommended for early, for late, with zinc, without zinc, etc.  The evidence is thus far little or no benefit at all - and significant increased risk of death.  The 'research' supporting it has been horrendously flawed.  The research showing harm has generally been well done.

Except that's not true either.  The US research has been almost entire limited to the extremely ill.  That would mean the primary potential benefit of the treatment - suppression of the virus before it has a chance to overwhelm the body - was never going to be demonstratable.  The treatment is not a cure for someone already damaged, it's a method to slow viral progress to allow the body to fight it off.

Again, the fact that you think what you do is a function of source bias.

Quote
I didn't recommend quercetin, I said that if we wanted a zinc ionophore, then it would be far more logical to try a supplement than is GRAS (generally recognized as safe), rather than a medication with known serious side effects.

If the only point was the zinc you'd have a point.  Again, there's plenty of discussion about how HCQ could also be supporting the body and inhibiting viral reproduction, it's role in allowing zinc to operate is a force multiplier not the only predicted method of action.  Honestly though I don't care, if there's a better choice than HCQ I'd love to get it into trials ASAP.  It's only political spite that wants it to not be HCQ to the point of promoting flawed studies.

Quote
I also pointed out early on that death was expected with HCQ because the ezymes that metabolize it are oxygen dependent and thus a hypoxic individual is getting a much larger effective dose.

Yep.  Which is why a "test" that limits its use only to individuals that have already suffered severe lung damage is flawed.

By the way, hearing much about ventilators these days?  The "early results" on what was expected to be a "gold standard" life saving treatment were so terrible they started to give ventilators a bad reputation.  Granted, we'd need a serious study to separate out whether ventilators are causing fatal damage to weakened lungs or the only chance the patient has, but I don't you see demanding double blind studies for COVID patients on that front.  Why not?  Treatment for a novel virus that causes heavily lung damage is actually by ventilator is actually experimental.  Its just something that we have every reason to have suspected could be effective.

Quote
It wasn't a 'common trend' - the absolute numbers of medical professionals doing so was quite small.  The reality is that many doctors are extremely ignorant of science.  Only 20% can do basic bayesian reasoning - something that is absolutely mandatory to understanding things like drug treatment effectiveness.

Can you define "quite small"?  I'm not taking your word for it.  I note that Google has been flooded with left wing "stories" claiming it's not common but not one of them actually provides statistics, most commonly they cite to the "limited studies" and ignore the actual question of how many are taking it off label.

You won't get an argument from me that doctors are good with statistics.  They're almost a sucky as the rest of the population with them.  The problem is though at this stage we have no good statistics, everything is just reasonable or unreasonable projections that analogize to known effects in other contexts.

That's why your position in particular is so dangerous and disingenous.  You pretend that we have a choice between known rock solid confirmed results and completely made up lies.  We don't.  We have a straight forward choice between how widely we allow people to take treatments that have reasonable probabilities of effectiveness while we are working on developing rock solid confirmed results.  Your opposition to HCQ is political not scientific, and pretending its because there hasn't been a double blind study or because "early results" from studies that were designed to fail based on the expected mechanisms of action give you cover to pretend that you are not being political.

Unless you are saying it's better to let he disease go untreated than let people take medicines that have reasonable probabilities based on their known effects of being helpful the opposition to HCQ can only be political.  And you can't pretend you based this on the recent results, you opposed it before any studies had been conducted.

Quote
Quote
So why wouldn't the friend be aware of it?  Again, choice of their news providers.

Because it isn't important.  WHy would they cover it?

It's a funny test you advocate.  They will cover any thing at all, whether it's unimportant, fake, a lie, completely nonsense if it supports their anti-Trump memes.  But if it's counter to them it can be covered.

It's really simple here though.  You are just telling yourself a self serving lie.  It actually is news and important.

Quote
Medicine isn't a popularity contest - the evidence is overwhelmingly that HCQ is dangerous and shows little or no benefit.  There wasn't every any good evidence to think it might be useful.

Again none of that is actually true.  There's no "overwhelming" evidence that HCQ is dangerous.  It's risks are widely known and it's used by certain segments of the population routinely.  Like any treatment there are risks and they may or may not be worth it compared to the benefits.

The evidence it could be useful is in fact pretty good. Its anti-viral properties have been known about for decades.  The mechanism through which it operates is known and reasonable for consideration for an impact on COVID 19, and it's show in lab tests to have an effect on the virus.  If it wasn't connected to Trump it would be one of the top candidates for trials without any one blinking an eye.

Again, you seem to be of the view that we'd be better off dead than for Trump to have been right. Cause you've really bought into something the science doesn't prove, which if you were being consistent you'd have to have acknowledged.

Quote
Completely agree, there just wasn't any such evidence for usage of HCQ.  There is legit off label usage, and dubious usage.  The evidence simply was never there to suggest we should even try HCQ.

I think this is beating a dead horse, but your claim his is false.  HCQ's potential here may never pan out, but it's absolutely wrong that there isn't evidence supporting that potential.  It's known  effects are almost certainly the reason it was tried in the first place.  I can't even imagine how any one could have the knowledge on this topic you sometimes seem to have an not be aware of that.  HCQ wasn't pulled off them medical shelf at random.   

Quote
There was no useful evidence supporting usage of HCQ.  Raoult's trials were horrendously done - he excluded the people who got seriously ill and died who were on HCQ when calculating his average viral load stuff.  The New York doctor was presenting an absurdity regarding how many cases he had treated, the reality was he was almost certainly misdiagnosing people who had colds and other minor illnesses.

You are making a common mistake.  Flawed studies produce flawed results. They still produce evidence.  It's just of less utiilty.  Again, it's almost like you'd have to run a double blind study before you'd accept that a house needs to be built with walls on all sides.  Double blinds are to week correlation from causation, no one actually cares though if we can get a "correllation" of getting better about what the real cause is.

The NY doctor is actually a funny case, because he was using it more closely in line with how its actually projected to work.

Quote
Yes.  As I said above - responsible news organizations don't write about treatments that don't have evidence to support them.

That's literally a lie, they do it all the time.  It's political blindness that's causing you to make this claim. No one out there wrote anything about HQC that wasn't true.  The President didn't even go that far.  He gave an optimistic message that was qualified.

Again the reason you think otherwise is that your sources misrepresent what actually happened.

Quote
They report only when there is adequately vetted evidence.

Again its a lie.  How many reports have quoted a time line to develop a vaccine.  Probably hundreds of thousands.  There's no vetted evidence that supports that.  We'll read reports of the "next great thing" in medicine that ultimately pan out to be not much.

Quote
Quote
The media pretends Trump is pushing an outlandish theory, you've analogized it to healing rocks.

He was pushing a theory without scientific support.  It was actually more dangerous than promoting healing rocks or homeopathy, since those can't kill you (well, homeoupathy can have contaminated water, but most preperations are unlikely to kill you).

Again that's false.  There is scientific support.  You not liking research that has been ongoing for decades does not magically delegitimize it.

Quote
No, he departed in a worse decision.  The expert advice was quarantine, instead of travel bans.  We implemnted travel bans but not quarantines.  So all of the US citizens who returned to the US did massive spread of infections.  Similarly the travelers from other countries and through other routes that weren't banned resulted in the infection still spreading about the same as countries who did neither travel bans nor quarantine.

Now you are being ridiculous.  The expert advice could have been to shoot on sight that doesn't make it possible or legitimate.  The travel ban was a radical departure from precedent and the left immediately whined about it being unnecessary and racist.  Travelors were directed to self quarantine, which is pretty much the extent of the legal authority.  They ignored it, and blue state politicians undermined it.  I saw deBlasio telling NY'ers to get out and mingle to go to China Town and mingle with the crowds.  Pelosi in late February visting Chinatown and saying "That’s what we’re trying to do today is to say everything is fine here," Pelosi said. "Come because precautions have been taken. The city is on top of the situation."  That's in the last week of February, almost a month after Trump's original travel ban.

Lie to yourself if you want, there is ZERO chance that mandatory quaratine was happening.

Quote
Everything reported on and suspected about Russia was accurate.

False.  Most everything reported on and suspected about Russia was actually false.  Most was a fantasy spun from the minds of political operatives of the left that the media uncritically pretended wer real. 

Quote
There was the meeting with the Russian lawyer by Trump Jr. and other Trump high level campaign members.

Which lawyer met with DNC operatives before and after the meeting.  Sounds like collusion with Russia doesn't it?

Quote
It was deemed that Trump Jr. and others might plead lack of knowledge of the relevant law and thus the case wasn't strong enough to garuntee a conviction.

Total garbage interpretation and a lie.  Nothing prevented Mueller from bringing that case if there was crime. He spared no measure in pursuing others with less basis.

What killed that case is actually in Mueller's own report.  There has NEVER BEEN ANY CASE THAT FOUND PROVIDING TRUE EVIDENCE OF A CRIME ISA THING OF VALUE.  Without that fact there can't be a crime.  He also found that it would have been impossible to show that Trump Jr. knowingly "violated a law" against that standard both because there's no way to know something is a crime if t's NEVER been found to be one and because he didn't have an awareness of the law.

And it's rich, because it wouldn't have been a crime if Trump Jr. paid for it in any event.  It's only a "crime" if its free.  Good thing Hillary's lawyers paid for their Russian misinformation.

Quote
There were meetings with Trump campaign members and Russia.

No there weren't.  You've misstated the truth.

Quote
Stone definitely colluded with Russia (via the GRU under the name Guccifer) and coordinated with the Trump campaign.

Again you've made false claims.  You're confused about who "colluded" with Guccifer, you've repeated an unproven claim about Guccifer's identity (and ignored that no one would have had any way to"know" that Guccifer was anything but the hacker he appeared to be), and you've overstated the coordination on that front.  Again, never shown which is why Stone is in prison for lying rather than conspriracy.  In fact, his trial pretty much conclusively showed he didn't coordinate anything in a material way that he was essentially a braggart.

Quote
However there wasn't specific evidence of whether the Trump campaign had knowledge of Stones working with Russia.

There wasn't specific evidence that Stone did work with Russia.  or that Stone would have had any reason to believe he was.

Quote
Facts aren't a 'liberal narrative'.  There is objective reality even if you choose to ignore it.

I agree facts aren't a liberal narrative, the liberal narrative and facts have nothing in common other than they can both be expressed in words.

I don't know what you've been reading lately, but you've dropped way off the deep end on confirmation bias of false statements.

Quote
Quote
I mean by golly, any one on the left that's ever repeated back some form of the Russian collusion being obvious or proven is someone that's completely misinformed.

BS.  There was plenty of evidence that it happened but it was felt those for whom we had evidence of them doing so, could plead ignorance of the law, so they weren't prosecuted.

Except you are lying.  Mueller's conclusion was that there was no evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia.  Listing out "contacts" and pretending there's more to it is exactly the basis behind this being a complete hoax. 

Quote
Ignorance was an affirmate defense against the charges that would have been brought.

Not even remotely.  You misunderstood it's role in the report and have grossly overgeneralized its applicability. 

Don Jr. did not benefit from Presidential immunity.  He benefitted because there was no plausible way that Mueller could have made a case.  We have a word for that in legal circles, it's called innocent.

You seem to believe that being innocent really means that you "got away" with it.

Not sure why quoted Mueller, it just demonstrated that you don't understand him.  "...second, the government would likely encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation."  It's right there.  Mueller wrote the entire section to tell you that there was no crime, but to pretend there was.

You specifically were his target audience.  You fell for it.  Meuller admitted this was not illegal conduct, hence he couldn't prove it but he wanted you to think it was a crime and you do.  You don't blink an eye at Hillary buying Russian misinformation, but Don Jr. neither buying or even receiving what was supposed to be true evidence of a crime by Hillary is a crime in your mind.  Do you realize how far you have to be down the nonsense rabbit hole to rationalize that?

Quote
So they didn't think they had enough evidence to prove that the acted willfully, but they absolutely had evidence that it happened.

Its sad to see how effective propaganda is.  Meuller told you it wasn't a crime, and you deluded yourself into thinking it was.  It has zero to do with Don Jr.'s knowledge, any prosecutor would have taken that case if that was all they had to prove.  They do it all the time.  They impute the knowledge they flip a defendant.  He didn't bring the case because the theory is garbage.  You really fell for the idea that it would be criminal for a Russian national to send you court documents from Russia showing your opponent committed a crime?

When even smart people are this easily mislead it explains a lot about why the country is where it is.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Kasandra on May 21, 2020, 06:17:26 AM
Quote
Its sad to see how effective propaganda is.  Meuller told you it wasn't a crime, and you deluded yourself into thinking it was.

No he didn't.  Next to endless repetition of false information (and outright lies), bloviation is another tried and true technique to wear down the opposition and make it seem like what you're saying is accurate.  Besides the mountain of nonsense facts that you constantly try to turn into evidence, nobody bloviates better than you!  Mueller said:

Quote
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The reason for that circumspect statement is that Mueller believed that the DoJ couldn't indict a sitting President.  This statement leaves open the option for Trump to be indicted after Mueller's official role is terminated and Trump leaves office.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on May 21, 2020, 02:14:02 PM
Quote
Its sad to see how effective propaganda is.  Meuller told you it wasn't a crime, and you deluded yourself into thinking it was.

No he didn't.  Next to endless repetition of false information (and outright lies), bloviation is another tried and true technique to wear down the opposition and make it seem like what you're saying is accurate.  Besides the mountain of nonsense facts that you constantly try to turn into evidence, nobody bloviates better than you!  Mueller said:

Quote
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The reason for that circumspect statement is that Mueller believed that the DoJ couldn't indict a sitting President.  This statement leaves open the option for Trump to be indicted after Mueller's official role is terminated and Trump leaves office.

Don Jr.  Kas is not the President.  Do you want to try again?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Kasandra on May 21, 2020, 05:47:24 PM
Quote
Don Jr.  Kas is not the President.  Do you want to try again?

Is that byzantine labyrinth of back and forth who knows who or what you were referring to. My comment stands.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on May 21, 2020, 07:21:19 PM
Except that's not true either.  The US research has been almost entire limited to the extremely ill.

There has been research in a variety of countries at all intervention points.  None show benefit.

Quote
That would mean the primary potential benefit of the treatment - suppression of the virus before it has a chance to overwhelm the body - was never going to be demonstratable.  The treatment is not a cure for someone already damaged, it's a method to slow viral progress to allow the body to fight it off.

Has been investigated, hasn't been found to be of benefit.

Quote
If the only point was the zinc you'd have a point.

It hasn't shown any benefit as an antiviral without zinc and causes increased mortality.  So it should be eliminated.  The inhibit acidification of endosomes theory didn't pan out.  So all that remains is the zinc ionosphore - which it shouldn't be used for because there are safer zinc ionosphores.

Quote
Yep.  Which is why a "test" that limits its use only to individuals that have already suffered severe lung damage is flawed.

The people who show up at hospitals do so because of their hypoxic status - anyone who is sick enough to realize they are sick, are probably too sick to take HCQ.

Quote
By the way, hearing much about ventilators these days?  The "early results" on what was expected to be a "gold standard" life saving treatment were so terrible they started to give ventilators a bad reputation.

No, they work fine.  What was happening is people were calculating mortality ignoring those who were still recovering.  You have early COVID-19 mortality in about half the cases that eventually die, but rarely have rapid recovery after going on a ventilator.  So if you calculate deaths/(deaths+recovered) early on you get like 80% mortality rate, because the vast majority of the people who went on ventilation are neither dead nor recovered in the first week.  If you let the entire cohort go to completion you get 20% mortality rate - in line with expectations from other countries.  This was another case of bad math and bad reporting.

Quote
It found that, overall, about 20% of Covid-19 patients treated at Northwell Health died, and 25% of those placed on ventilators died. [...] This study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, describes the outlook for patients with severe Covid-19 disease. The report originally said that 12% of patients needed ventilators and that 88% of them had died.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/health/coronavirus-ventilator-patients-die/index.html

That 88% number was based on the deaths/(deaths+recovered) from early on; the 25% is based on most of the cohort being resolved.  Hmm I guess you need to find better news sources, since clearly this is rather important news that you didn't have.  Incidentially I pointed out the math error when this was first discussed (though it may not have been on Ornery).

Quote
Granted, we'd need a serious study to separate out whether ventilators are causing fatal damage to weakened lungs or the only chance the patient has, but I don't you see demanding double blind studies for COVID patients on that front.  Why not?  Treatment for a novel virus that causes heavily lung damage is actually by ventilator is actually experimental.  Its just something that we have every reason to have suspected could be effective.

No we don't need such a study, we need doctors better trained in math so they don't make such basic errors.


Quote
You won't get an argument from me that doctors are good with statistics.  They're almost a sucky as the rest of the population with them.  The problem is though at this stage we have no good statistics, everything is just reasonable or unreasonable projections that analogize to known effects in other contexts.

We actually do have some reasonablly good statistics.  The New York antibody study was pretty well done.  I still think they are underestimated false positives but they weren't getting absurd results.  Based on 20% of NYC being infected and assuming no false positives, and no more deaths among the currently infected but not recovered - they would have a 1% Infection Fatality Rate.  Using slightly more realisitic assumptions (the false positives are 3-5% range; that about 1/3 of the mortality in the unrecovered is yet to occur) that puts the IFR in the 1.5-2% range.  Entirely consistent with finding in countries with extensive tracing and idenfitication of the infected.  What I'd really like to know is what the antibody rate is for just elderly cohorts.  Since most of the deaths are concentrated in the elderly.  If significantly more or fewer than 20% of the NYC elderly have caught COVID-19 that could significantly impact the expected IFR.

There was a really good study comparing false positives among various antibody tests (though I think they screwed up one test - since it wasn't showing any false positives.  They were planning to redo that test, but don't know if they did). 

Quote
That's why your position in particular is so dangerous and disingenous.  You pretend that we have a choice between known rock solid confirmed results and completely made up lies.

No that isn't my position.  We have some fairly good studies, some god-awful studies or studies with major errors, and we have unfounded hopes.  It is dangerous to push unfounded hopes - it gets people killed.  It is dangerous to misrepresent statistics or have major statistical errors in papers that understate the risk of COVID-19 - it gets people killed.  The vast majority of the major errors have been in papers that are claiming a reduced risk.

Quote
We don't.  We have a straight forward choice between how widely we allow people to take treatments that have reasonable probabilities of effectiveness while we are working on developing rock solid confirmed results.

That is completely wrong.  There was never any solid reason to expect HCQ to be effective and it was known to be dangerous.  So it was entirely reasonable to not use it unless and until there was good evidence of effectiveness.  When Trump announced it was a 'game changer' there was one underpowered study from China that was so small the result was likely statistical noise and then there was Raoult's publication where he calculated viral loads by excluding the cases then went on to be ventilated or died.  If you exclude the worse outcomes from one group average, you can't compare it to an average that doesn't exclude the worst outcomes.  If you exclude the worst outcomes from both averages, then it doesn't show any benefit.  Thus his result was purely bad math.

Also no one had suggested HCQ + Zinc at that time.  The HCQ + Zinc was proposed after HCQ was proving ineffective.  It was a pivot once it became clear that it wasn't useful.

Quote
Your opposition to HCQ is political not scientific, and pretending its because there hasn't been a double blind study or because "early results" from studies that were designed to fail based on the expected mechanisms of action give you cover to pretend that you are not being political.

My opposition has been purely scientific.  There have been far more studies of HCQ and COVID-19 than you seem to think, the majority had to be stopped early because of negative outcomes from the HCQ.

Quote
Unless you are saying it's better to let he disease go untreated than let people take medicines that have reasonable probabilities based on their known effects of being helpful the opposition to HCQ can only be political.  And you can't pretend you based this on the recent results, you opposed it before any studies had been conducted.

There was never any 'reasonable probability' to begin with.  What gave you the impression that such existed?  The only support was based on Raoult's bad math.

Quote
Again none of that is actually true.  There's no "overwhelming" evidence that HCQ is dangerous.  It's risks are widely known and it's used by certain segments of the population routinely.  Like any treatment there are risks and they may or may not be worth it compared to the benefits.

As said for hypoxic individuals, once you reach the fever stage you generally are hypoxic, and most people won't go for treatment until they have at least a fever.  You also have to drastically lower the dosage for people with poor kidney function.  Since the people most at risk of death for COVID-19 are also those with poor kidney function - it is never reasonable to give them HCQ.  People who 'routinely take it' are generaly young (most lupus patients are women age 18-44, median age at death for women with lupus is 59) and not at risk of hypoxia and don't have compromised kidneys.

Quote
The evidence it could be useful is in fact pretty good. Its anti-viral properties have been known about for decades.  The mechanism through which it operates is known and reasonable for consideration for an impact on COVID 19, and it's show in lab tests to have an effect on the virus.

There are literally millions of compounds that have 'anti-viral properties' - pick any plant and you will get 100's to 1000's of such compounds.  Lab tests ('in vitro') are generally done at enormous multiples of the lethal dose (over 100x the LD50 isn't uncommon), which is why it isn't considered to be very persuasive.  At pharmaceutical dosages most of them have no effect.  Something isn't promising' until there are animal studies ('in vivo').  There was never any real reason to suspect that there would be useful in vivo effectiveness.

Quote
If it wasn't connected to Trump it would be one of the top candidates for trials without any one blinking an eye.

It wouldn't be a 'top candidate' - it would be one of many 1000 candidates.

Quote
Again, you seem to be of the view that we'd be better off dead than for Trump to have been right.

No.  There was simply never any reason to think that Trump's views should matter at all - he has never shown even a basic understanding of science - so him pushing a compound shouldn't be persuasive either for or against it.  Instead based on the known risk factors it should have been low on the list of things to try.  The reason for the initial trial in China appears to have been 'availability bias' - someone heard of the in vitro study from a number of years back on SARS-CoV-1 and decided to give it a try - as with most doctors being unaware that in vitro studies are usually at doses so extreme that they almost never point to useful in vivo compounds.  In vitro studies are to screen out useless compounds to give you candidate compounds, but the candidate compounds are usually 1 in 10,000 expectation of usefulness.
 
Quote
Cause you've really bought into something the science doesn't prove, which if you were being consistent you'd have to have acknowledged.

Look, none of you seem to have an even basic grasp of the science.  Which is fine, there are plenty of things I'm a complete ignoramous on as well.  You are talking though as if you think you have knowledge.

Quote
I think this is beating a dead horse, but your claim his is false.  HCQ's potential here may never pan out, but it's absolutely wrong that there isn't evidence supporting that potential.  It's known  effects are almost certainly the reason it was tried in the first place.  I can't even imagine how any one could have the knowledge on this topic you sometimes seem to have an not be aware of that.  HCQ wasn't pulled off them medical shelf at random.

It wasn't pulled of the shelf at random.  But the dosings we can safely take can only give a 5-10% reduction in viral load.  (A healthy person who isn't hypoxic and no compromised kidneys can do a loading dosage of 800 mg, and then maintenance of 400 mg three times a week.  This will give (peak) blood cocentrations in the 500 ng/mL range which is 1.5 uM.  HCQ is about 1/25th-2/25th as potent as CQ.  CQ requires .1 uM for a 20% inhibition of virus.  So HCQ would need 2.5 uM for 20%.  If the effectivness is linear, that would be a 12% reduction (also blood concetration isn't maintained at peak so this is an overestimate) in viral load for safe dosing for healthy adults.  However that was for healthy adults.  Compromised liver clearance due to hypoxia or compromised kidneys - reduces safe dosing by at least 50%.  So we are looking at a maximum 6% reduction in viral load - probably more like half of that.  This isn't a 'game changer' - it is unlikely to show any clinical benefit.

Quote
You are making a common mistake.  Flawed studies produce flawed results. They still produce evidence.

It did produce evidence, if you recalculate properly you get essentially no viral load difference.  So it Raoult provided evidence against the theory.  The NY doctor didn't provide any evidence because there is no reason to think he was treating COVID-19 patients.

Quote
It's just of less utiilty.  Again, it's almost like you'd have to run a double blind study before you'd accept that a house needs to be built with walls on all sides.  Double blinds are to week correlation from causation, no one actually cares though if we can get a "correllation" of getting better about what the real cause is.

This had nothing to do with blinding.  The first was a calculation error; the second was misdiagnosis.  Correcting the calulation shows no benefit.  Misdiagnosis provides no evidence either way.

Quote
The NY doctor is actually a funny case, because he was using it more closely in line with how its actually projected to work.

He was using the zinc + HCQ, but since there is no expectation that his patients actually had COVID-19 it isn't evidence of anything - other than at the dosage he was using it apparently didn't kill his patients.

Quote
Quote
Yes.  As I said above - responsible news organizations don't write about treatments that don't have evidence to support them.

That's literally a lie, they do it all the time.  It's political blindness that's causing you to make this claim. No one out there wrote anything about HQC that wasn't true.  The President didn't even go that far.  He gave an optimistic message that was qualified.

He said it was a 'game changer' - see above - at safe dosages it can have little or no effect - and at the time he made that statement it was purely based on the HCQ usage without zinc as done in Raoult's study.

Feel free to point out 'responsible news organizations' writing about drugs that have dangerous side effects as treatments without evidence.  If you mean it 'had evidnece' - see above.

Quote
Quote
They report only when there is adequately vetted evidence.

Again its a lie.  How many reports have quoted a time line to develop a vaccine.  Probably hundreds of thousands.  There's no vetted evidence that supports that.  We'll read reports of the "next great thing" in medicine that ultimately pan out to be not much.

We were talking about a drug with known dangerous side effects.  Speculating there might be something useful 'in the future' is not promoting, endorsing, or otherwise implying that a drug with known serious risks is effective when there isn't evidence of such.


Quote
He was pushing a theory without scientific support.  It was actually more dangerous than promoting healing rocks or homeopathy, since those can't kill you (well, homeoupathy can have contaminated water, but most preperations are unlikely to kill you).

Again that's false.  There is scientific support.  You not liking research that has been ongoing for decades does not magically delegitimize it.[/quote]

So we differ in what 'scientific support' for a medication means.  I'd say my opinion on the matter is far more informed than yours is.

Quote
Now you are being ridiculous.  The expert advice could have been to shoot on sight that doesn't make it possible or legitimate.

Requiring quarantine is not ridiculous.  It is fairly standard practice for highly contagious diseases.

Quote
The travel ban was a radical departure from precedent and the left immediately whined about it being unnecessary and racist.

As stated by the WHO travel bans are essentially entirely ineffective due to rerouting.

Quote
Travelors were directed to self quarantine, which is pretty much the extent of the legal authority.

It most definitely is not the 'extent of the legal authority'.  There was a mandatory federal quarantine on the 195 who flew directly from Wuhan.  They were put on a military base and not allowed to leave for two weeks (one attempted to and was placed under individual quarantine).

Quote
They ignored it, and blue state politicians undermined it.  I saw deBlasio telling NY'ers to get out and mingle to go to China Town and mingle with the crowds.  Pelosi in late February visting Chinatown and saying "That’s what we’re trying to do today is to say everything is fine here," Pelosi said. "Come because precautions have been taken. The city is on top of the situation."  That's in the last week of February, almost a month after Trump's original travel ban.

NY was infected from Italy.  California was infected from China.  It wasn't Chinatown that was the source.

Quote
Lie to yourself if you want, there is ZERO chance that mandatory quaratine was happening.

Except it did happen, but only once.  The further requests of the CDC were refused.

Will ignore your Russian stuff, since it has been hashed out here before and you seem rather fact immune and it isn't really relevant to the discussion.  I'll only address Guccifer - he was confirmed to be a Russian agent through a couple of ways.  Here is one I recall, they were able to narrow it down to a specific GRU officer.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/dnc-lone-hacker-guccifer-2-0-pegged-as-russian-spy-after-opsec-fail/

There is also some coverage of GRU and their Guccifer cutout in the Mueller report, though significant parts were redacted.

Enough time wasted with you.  Back to me working on medicine.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on May 21, 2020, 09:04:12 PM
Quote
Don Jr.  Kas is not the President.  Do you want to try again?

Is that byzantine labyrinth of back and forth who knows who or what you were referring to. My comment stands.

Then you're just being ridiculous.  The President wasn't in the meeting.  Mueller was free to charge everyone who was.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on May 21, 2020, 09:28:09 PM
LR, I've seen this chart a few times and it actually seems like a pretty good source for information.  https://www.ashp.org/-/media/8CA43C674C6D4335B6A19852843C4052.ashx (https://www.ashp.org/-/media/8CA43C674C6D4335B6A19852843C4052.ashx)

You can follow it down to HCQ and it pretty much lays out the case for why it was being considered, and the current conclusion seems to be that more study is required.  The actual studies have mixed results, with some showing good results and some (particularly in US hospital settings showing bad).  It's not shown any ability to reverse the disease in the seriously ill, but the jury seems to be out about it's efficacy on those that are not already seriously ill.

Again, this is not the position you have been selling that it would be some special kind of malpractice to think it would work.  But it's not a proven result either.  If you look there's at least 10 trials that seem to be ongoing, which again seems to contradict your certainty.  You want to explain why he medical community is still pursuing it when apparently you've seen enough to make a decisive conclusion?

And I apologize that's all I have time for tonight will have to take a look at the rest tomorrow.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on May 21, 2020, 11:22:27 PM
Seriati, thanks for the link - it is actually quite a good source.  Don't have time to respond substantially for now, not sure when I will.   Briefly though - of three studies with 'good results' are the two by Raoult, and one Chinese study that had 32 patients in the treatment and control group.  All of the others studies the treatment group had worse (or 'no better') outcomes.  If you do the Raoult study properly it actually has worse outcomes for treatment group,

Quote
Although the study started with 26 patients in the HQ or HQ+AZ group, data from only 20 treated patients are given, because not all patients completed the 6-day study. The data for these 20 patients looks incredibly nice; especially the patients who were given both medications all recovered very fast.

What happened to the other six treated patients? Why did they drop out of the study? Three of them were transferred to the intensive care unit (presumably because they got sicker) and 1 died. The other two patients were either too nauseous and stopped the medication, or left the hospital (which might be a sign they felt much better).

[...]

So 4 of the 26 treated patients were actually not recovering at all. It seems a bit strange to leave these 4 patients who got worse or who died out of the study, just on the basis that they stopped taking the medication (which is pretty difficult once the patient is dead). As several people wrote sarcastically on Twitter: My results always look amazing if I leave out the patients who died, or the experiments that did not work.

https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2020/03/24/thoughts-on-the-gautret-et-al-paper-about-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-treatment-of-covid-19-infections/

So you basically have one positive ok study (but too small to reach any conclusions), a study by Raoult that when properly analyized shows worse outcome than no treatment (and a second study by Raoult that seems to have similar flaws), and 7 studies that show either worse outcomes or no benefit.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Kasandra on May 22, 2020, 08:58:22 AM
New Lancet pub (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-study/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJjb29raWVuYW1lIjoid3BfY3J0aWQiLCJpc3MiOiJDYXJ0YSIsImNvb2tpZXZhbHVlIjoiNWE3ZDllNjJhZGU0ZTI1N2NiYTgzYTQyIiwidGFnIjoid3BfbmV3c19hbGVydF9yZXZlcmUiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy53YXNoaW5ndG9ucG9zdC5jb20vaGVhbHRoLzIwMjAvMDUvMjIvaHlkcm94eWNobG9yb3F1aW5lLWNvcm9uYXZpcnVzLXN0dWR5Lz93cG1rPTEmd3Bpc3JjPWFsX25ld3NfX2FsZXJ0LXBvbGl0aWNzLS1hbGVydC1uYXRpb25hbCZ1dG1fc291cmNlPWFsZXJ0JnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPXdwX25ld3NfYWxlcnRfcmV2ZXJlIn0.dyCPUj9vZPX-zmbFt7N-_0Bqoy8yCNajgzUsC8zIMvg&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&utm_medium=email&utm_source=alert&wpisrc=al_news__alert-politics--alert-national&wpmk=1) on study of Hydroxychloroquine:

Quote
A study of 96,000 hospitalized coronavirus patients on six continents found that those who received an antimalarial drug promoted by President Trump as a “game changer” in the fight against the virus had a significantly higher risk of death compared with those who did not.

People treated with hydroxychloroquine, or the closely related drug chloroquine, were also more likely to develop a type of irregular heart rhythm, or arrhythmia, that can lead to sudden cardiac death, it concluded.

The study, published Friday in the medical journal the Lancet, is the largest analysis to date of the risks and benefits of treating covid-19 patients with antimalarial drugs. It is based on a retrospective analysis of medical records, not a controlled study in which patients are divided randomly into treatment groups — a method considered the gold standard of medicine. But the sheer size of the study was convincing to some scientists.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Crunch on May 22, 2020, 09:18:26 AM
Meanwhile, potential VP pick Amy Klobuchar talks about how her husband took HCQ. Credits it for saving his life.

Just need that body count a little higher, right?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on May 22, 2020, 10:14:38 AM
Meanwhile, potential VP pick Amy Klobuchar talks about how her husband took HCQ. Credits it for saving his life.
Do you have a link to her saying that?  It seems out of character...
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Kasandra on May 22, 2020, 10:36:24 AM
Meanwhile, potential VP pick Amy Klobuchar talks about how her husband took HCQ. Credits it for saving his life.

Just need that body count a little higher, right?

The only comment I can find from Klobuchar on this is:

Quote
“Well, I think that I listened to the science there. I believe he did briefly take that drug … or some drug like it, but I think that we have to listen to the science and you have to listen to your doctors with what is going to work in each individual situation,”

So, Crunch seems to have taken a lot from that comment (if he heard something more he should share it).  I'd also like to understand what his own comment is supposed to mean.  It sounds nasty and hateful, but it's not clear who it's intended to attack.

Also, Crunch, do you dispute the findings in the Lancet study? 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on July 06, 2020, 01:32:49 PM
Fox News "mistakenly" cropped President Trump out of a photograph featuring accused sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein (https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/media/fox-news-trump-crop-epstein-maxwell/index.html)
Quote
New York (CNN)Fox News said on Monday that it "mistakenly" cropped President Trump out of a photograph that featured the accused sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

"On Sunday, July 5, a report on Ghislaine Maxwell during Fox News Channel's 'America's News HQ' mistakenly eliminated President Donald Trump from a photo alongside then Melania Knauss, Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell," a spokesperson for the network said.
The Fox News spokesperson added, "We regret the error."
It's not clear how Fox was being most misleading, here: by cropping Trump out, or stating it was done "mistakenly"...
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Kasandra on July 06, 2020, 01:55:28 PM
In fairness, it was an honest mistake like all the others.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on July 06, 2020, 01:59:08 PM
How clumsy of them!
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on July 24, 2020, 06:37:43 PM
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/18/new-document-shows-fbi-totally-debunked-new-york-t/

Quote
One of the most glaringly bogus Trump-Russia stories by The New York Times in 2017 was picked apart inside the FBI at the time as containing over a dozen major inaccuracies, a newly disclosed document shows.

Declassified by the Justice Department, the document contains the Times story that reported there were extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence. The document also contains a typewritten critique in the margins by FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who totally rejected the Times’ claim.

And in case you've forgotten who Strzok is: (elsewhere in the piece)

Quote
Mr. Strzok, who was fired for his anti-Trump texts, wrote 15 Times story comments, including:

even better(at the end of the article):

Quote
But that’s not the end of the story of the FBI’s skepticism.

According to then-White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe approached him and volunteered to the president’s top aide that the just-published New York Times story was bunk.

Mr. Priebus asked if he could say that publicly. Later, the FBI told him he could not. The next thing Mr. Priebus knew, CNN was reporting he some how intervened with the FBI to get it to say something that was false. This never happened, he said. He always wondered if the bureau set him up.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 07, 2020, 07:09:19 AM
All news media headlines: Trump calls off stimulus talks, stocks drop 600; Stephen Miller tests positive for COVID-19

Fox News: Clinton e-mails!!! Clinton e-mails!!! Clinton e-mails!!!
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: yossarian22c on October 07, 2020, 09:10:56 AM
All news media headlines: Trump calls off stimulus talks, stocks drop 600; Stephen Miller tests positive for COVID-19

Fox News: Clinton e-mails!!! Clinton e-mails!!! Clinton e-mails!!!

I thought you were joking, so I visited fox news and saw it was true.  :(

Guess that is the story Trump's campaign wants to focus on.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on October 07, 2020, 09:52:23 AM
All news media headlines: Trump calls off stimulus talks, stocks drop 600; Stephen Miller tests positive for COVID-19

Fox News: Clinton e-mails!!! Clinton e-mails!!! Clinton e-mails!!!

I thought you were joking, so I visited fox news and saw it was true.  :(

Guess that is the story Trump's campaign wants to focus on.

If it wasn't so obvious attempt of distracting the loyal Trumpketeers who will latch on suck, it would be funny instead of sad.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 07, 2020, 09:53:45 AM
Fox isn't even making an effort any more.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: wmLambert on October 07, 2020, 10:57:57 AM
All news media headlines: Trump calls off stimulus talks, stocks drop 600; Stephen Miller tests positive for COVID-19

Fox News: Clinton e-mails!!! Clinton e-mails!!! Clinton e-mails!!!

I thought you were joking, so I visited fox news and saw it was true.  :(

Guess that is the story Trump's campaign wants to focus on.

If it wasn't so obvious attempt of distracting the loyal Trumpketeers who will latch on suck, it would be funny instead of sad.

On the contrary, you are deflecting from the real story. Running scared are you? Trump is declassifying those documents that allowed Hillary to stay out of prison. In so doing, Brennan, Obama, and the rest of those involved in the coup attempt may get perp-walked to the prison bus. This is the real story, and all the denigrating hyperbole you use to cover the coup attempt is much the same as what Hillary did. The object was to make you look anywhere but at her. Too late.

The master showman strikes again, and times it perfectly. The Democrats always have "October Surprises" ready to launch - but they've just been out-thought, out-maneuvered, and outed, in general. there is no place for your criminal leaders to hide. He also put the relief package onto Pelosi's shoulders. There will be no last-minute deal from the Democrats, because she walked away from one too many negotiations. Her snit is now bronzed like a pair of baby shoes. It's hers'. She owns it.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dni-brennan-notes-cia-memo-clinton
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: yossarian22c on October 07, 2020, 11:07:48 AM
He also put the relief package onto Pelosi's shoulders. There will be no last-minute deal from the Democrats, because she walked away from one too many negotiations. Her snit is now bronzed like a pair of baby shoes. It's hers'. She owns it.

The house has passed 2 relief packages. One in May for 3+ trillion and another last week for about 2.6 trillion. Its the senate that hasn't passed any relief package and Trump via twitter that called off negotiations. But sure, its Pelosi's fault there is no relief bill.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on October 07, 2020, 01:10:38 PM
Quote
The master showman strikes again
Says it all, worship your god as you will and never ever look in the mirror.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: yossarian22c on October 07, 2020, 01:21:06 PM
All news media headlines: Trump calls off stimulus talks, stocks drop 600; Stephen Miller tests positive for COVID-19

Fox News: Clinton e-mails!!! Clinton e-mails!!! Clinton e-mails!!!

I thought you were joking, so I visited fox news and saw it was true.  :(

Guess that is the story Trump's campaign wants to focus on.

If it wasn't so obvious attempt of distracting the loyal Trumpketeers who will latch on suck, it would be funny instead of sad.

On the contrary, you are deflecting from the real story. Running scared are you? Trump is declassifying those documents that allowed Hillary to stay out of prison. In so doing, Brennan, Obama, and the rest of those involved in the coup attempt may get perp-walked to the prison bus. This is the real story, and all the denigrating hyperbole you use to cover the coup attempt is much the same as what Hillary did. The object was to make you look anywhere but at her. Too late.

The master showman strikes again, and times it perfectly. The Democrats always have "October Surprises" ready to launch - but they've just been out-thought, out-maneuvered, and outed, in general. there is no place for your criminal leaders to hide.

You've latched on just as the propaganda machine hoped you would. But here's the rub. Trump and his administration has been in possession of these documents for years at this point. If there were actual evidence of crimes then they should have filed charges by this point. Instead they declassified documents redacted in a way to try to benefit Trump politically. So pick an option:

1) There is evidence of crimes and Trump has been sitting on it for years. Trump is declassifying it now instead of prosecuting the crimes for political benefit.
2) There is no evidence of crimes and Trump is releasing these documents for political benefit.


Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 07, 2020, 01:30:10 PM
Hmm, would that make Trump an accessory after the fact, for protecting Clinton for 4 years? Enquiring minds...
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on October 07, 2020, 01:47:16 PM
Hmm, would that make Trump an accessory after the fact, for protecting Clinton for 4 years? Enquiring minds...

I think you're kind of kidding, but just in case, there's obviously a major difference between protecting a criminal versus delaying the release of information so that it will have the proper effect. When it comes to using information to play politics I'm sure there is plenty of room to call into question someone's ethics in terms of preferring political advantage to justice, but that's not the same thing as it being a crime to do so. I would be quite surprised to learn that there's a legal mandate to report a crime you're aware of on a deadline basis with penalties for failing to do so on time.

That said, I too wonder why if there was incriminating information Trump would wait 3 years to release it. Surely releasing that information quickly would have done wonders to make the 'Russia hoax' go away. Prove Hillary committed crimes, and prove she engineered a smear campaign, and it might have saved him a lot of trouble. So either he couldn't show those things, or else...I dunno what.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 07, 2020, 02:12:00 PM
It would be hard to be an accessory to a non-existent crime...
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 07, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
To be clear, the Trump Justice Department already had access to all this information.  He is just now saying that he is releasing it to the public.  Which is interesting - he is taking upon himself, in this election cycle, the role of Russia/Wikileaks.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on October 07, 2020, 02:19:38 PM
Which is interesting - he is taking upon himself, in this election cycle, the role of Russia/Wikileaks.

Is there any reason why a President should not use true information he has access to in order to help his election chances? A smear or propaganda, I would agree would be troubling for a President to do. But do you think there is anything untoward in a President releasing factual documents in the hopes they will aid his election chances?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: msquared on October 07, 2020, 02:30:11 PM
I think it is untoward to sit on it and release it just before an election, with no chance to verify what is in it clearly. Especially if things have been redacted.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on October 07, 2020, 03:01:06 PM
I think it is untoward to sit on it and release it just before an election, with no chance to verify what is in it clearly. Especially if things have been redacted.

He claims they will be completely un-redacted. And if 'untoward' is going to be the standard then I would classify almost all of politics under this category. I was responding to the claim that it might be criminal to do so.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 07, 2020, 03:10:40 PM
Is there any reason why a President should not use true information he has access to in order to help his election chances? A smear or propaganda, I would agree would be troubling for a President to do. But do you think there is anything untoward in a President releasing factual documents in the hopes they will aid his election chances?
Yes, that is pretty much the definition of corruption, to abuse one's position as the leader of the country for political benefit.  It wasn't illegal to threaten the Ukraine with withholding funds, either.  That is completely within the purview of the president.  If he does so for political benefit..? 

I am disappointed this even needs to be mentioned.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on October 07, 2020, 03:30:38 PM
Yes, that is pretty much the definition of corruption, to abuse one's position as the leader of the country for political benefit.

You are assuming the conclusion of your statement as evidence that it's correct. I was asking whether it is in fact corrupt to release true, factual statements that will aid one's Presidential chances. That they required his authority to declassify is the extent of how his office came into it, but that they are (we assume) legitimate documents detailing misdeeds, how do you show that revealing legit crimes can be called corrupt? I mean you could argue all sorts of things, like he was complicit and is hiding his complicity, or he's telling only half the truth. Things like that I would agree are corrupt. But if he's just timing the release of true facts so that it will benefit him the most - isn't that literally how politics works? Not that I like it, but I don't see how that's anything but business as usual.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on October 07, 2020, 03:33:23 PM
Which is interesting - he is taking upon himself, in this election cycle, the role of Russia/Wikileaks.

Is there any reason why a President should not use true information he has access to in order to help his election chances? A smear or propaganda, I would agree would be troubling for a President to do. But do you think there is anything untoward in a President releasing factual documents in the hopes they will aid his election chances?

I'm starting to realize that a good portion of the country believes that winning an election means you have carte blanche to use your position in any way you deem fit.  You can use information only you have, given for other purposes, to influence an election or make money.  You can use the power you are given to run the government to reward your followers and punish your opponent.  That the information and power given to you to do your job is also given to you enrich yourself and your followers.  And that this is perfectly acceptable, if not expected. :(

This "winner take all and use it to keep in power" attitude is that of dictatorships and other repressive governments.  Because once a faction gains power, they must use it keep power, because losing power means losing money and resources for your faction and possibly never gaining it back.  So keeping in power is the only goal.

And thus democracy dies. :( 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 07, 2020, 04:03:41 PM
Yes, that is pretty much the definition of corruption, to abuse one's position as the leader of the country for political benefit.

You are assuming the conclusion of your statement as evidence that it's correct. I was asking whether it is in fact corrupt to release true, factual statements that will aid one's Presidential chances.
You misread.  If one does so for one's own political benefit, then yes, that is a corruption of one's authority. 

Declassifying any information whatsoever might, coincidentally, have the same effect, and that is within the purview of presidential authority.  Doing so in the course of one's job, in order to benefit the country?  That's not a problem.  Doing so purely for one's own benefit is corrupt.  This shouldn't need to be explained to anybody.

Jesus wept.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 07, 2020, 04:09:12 PM
This "winner take all and use it to keep in power" attitude is that of dictatorships and other repressive governments.  Because once a faction gains power, they must use it keep power, because losing power means losing money and resources for your faction and possibly never gaining it back.  So keeping in power is the only goal.

QFT

I have seen several people recently think nothing of this position, that winning an election means it is then acceptable to use that authority to game the system in any way that you can get away with in order to guarantee winning the next "election".
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: wmLambert on October 07, 2020, 06:49:27 PM
Yes, that is pretty much the definition of corruption, to abuse one's position as the leader of the country for political benefit.

You are assuming the conclusion of your statement as evidence that it's correct. I was asking whether it is in fact corrupt to release true, factual statements that will aid one's Presidential chances.
You misread.  If one does so for one's own political benefit, then yes, that is a corruption of one's authority. 

Declassifying any information whatsoever might, coincidentally, have the same effect, and that is within the purview of presidential authority.  Doing so in the course of one's job, in order to benefit the country?  That's not a problem.  Doing so purely for one's own benefit is corrupt.  This shouldn't need to be explained to anybody.

Jesus wept.

Quite amusing. Larouche stated:
Quote
...Ratcliffe’s declassified information has clearly hit a nerve. Within hours of its release, Facebook was censoring posts about it, stating that it was “disinformation.” Wow.
Do you know where Radcliffe was sending it? To the official investigator who has already stated he has uncovered crimes. John Durham has been investigating this forever, and Trump has officially stayed out of it. Durham has been taking his time, and that has no impact on Trump hiding documents. All your past few posts were way off the mark.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on October 07, 2020, 10:08:00 PM
I'm starting to realize that a good portion of the country believes that winning an election means you have carte blanche to use your position in any way you deem fit.  You can use information only you have, given for other purposes, to influence an election or make money.  You can use the power you are given to run the government to reward your followers and punish your opponent.  That the information and power given to you to do your job is also given to you enrich yourself and your followers.  And that this is perfectly acceptable, if not expected. :(

You know why they believe it? Because that's what they're taught by their two political parties. They didn't just come up with the idea of corrupt partisan politics sitting on their EZ chair at home sipping tea. They have been told in so many words that it's all or nothing and the other side has to be stopped. I find it ironic you would take this position given that the entire DNC mantra once Bernie dropped out of the primary was "you have to support us to stop Trump." The argument was literally to put their morals aside (for those who hated Hillary) in order to combine to defeat the enemy. So if you want to talk about using any means to secure power, look no further than your own party. But I would say the same to the other side too, it's just that I've been hearing 4 years nonstop of complaining in one direction so that's been leading discussions.

In terms of using power in office to influence the future of you, your followers, and your party, isn't that literally what both parties do as a matter of course? I don't see why it should be suddenly seen as abhorrent when it's Trump doing it. Maybe he doesn't put that shiny gloss on it; and if that's all it is then I'm glad for the ugly truth to be revealed in a crude way, rather than to truck on with winks and nods while everyone pretends it's a gentlemen's forum. We're talking about halls of power where people kill for money.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on October 07, 2020, 10:14:41 PM
Declassifying any information whatsoever might, coincidentally, have the same effect, and that is within the purview of presidential authority.  Doing so in the course of one's job, in order to benefit the country?  That's not a problem.  Doing so purely for one's own benefit is corrupt.  This shouldn't need to be explained to anybody.

I know what you want to be saying here, but as has been pointed out on these forums many times, many politicians actually do think that they are serving the public benefit by serving their own. The fact that their own success is linked to the success of the public is perhaps an unwholesome point of view (I would agree if you believe this), but you cannot just say that their are serving only their own benefit when they themselves don't even think of it that way. Actually I think some of them do; there are likely some percentage of bona fide sociopaths and beasts in positions of power who literally would wipe out nations to line their pockets. But more often I think we'd find the attitude of 'if I only do these things now I'll have the breathing room to finally help the country.' This is a corrupting and black hole of an attitude but it's not the same as cynically knowing you are throwing decency under the bus to just win. I do not subscribe to this kind of mentality, but it would idle to pretend that it's not a thing. I guess it's easy to assume Trump is just a bad guy who cares nothing for anything, but the act alone of releasing information strategically does not alone demonstrate this. It may be consistent with it, but it's also consistent with other mindsets as well.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 07, 2020, 10:28:52 PM
In terms of using power in office to influence the future of you, your followers, and your party, isn't that literally what both parties do as a matter of course? I don't see why it should be suddenly seen as abhorrent when it's Trump doing it. Maybe he doesn't put that shiny gloss on it; and if that's all it is then I'm glad for the ugly truth to be revealed in a crude way, rather than to truck on with winks and nods while everyone pretends it's a gentlemen's forum. We're talking about halls of power where people kill for money.
I'm just going to make an observation - since 1965 and until just a few years ago, certain states and jurisdictions, of completely unknown partisanship, were constrained in how they could set their election rules by the Voting Rights act. And since 1982, and until 2018, one particular party was constrained by a consent decree because that party, as well as the other party and the court, all agreed that the party in question could not be trusted to act fairly anywhere near polling places.

I know it's in vogue to pretend in false equivalences, like there are two sides to the climate crisis debate, there are two sides to whether smoking is bad for you, etc, but just because it is fashionable doesn't mean it should get a pass. 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on October 07, 2020, 10:35:55 PM
That goes over my head, but I assume you mean that the GOP couldn't be trusted and that the Voting Rights Act was designed to specifically constrain them?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 07, 2020, 10:59:40 PM
No, the Voting Rights Act constrained certain states.  Those states for the past 50 years (since the Civil Rights Act) admittedly leaned Republican, and the effects since the 1970s were to constrain Republicans.

However, the consent decree of 1982 absolutely did constrain the Republican Party from, well, cheating.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: yossarian22c on October 07, 2020, 11:53:22 PM
That goes over my head, but I assume you mean that the GOP couldn't be trusted and that the Voting Rights Act was designed to specifically constrain them?

Name 1 republican controlled state, other than Utah, that has made voting easier or more accessible in the last 10 years.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 07, 2020, 11:57:33 PM
I know what you want to be saying here, but as has been pointed out on these forums many times, many politicians actually do think that they are serving the public benefit by serving their own.
Yes, but you should be able to understand why they are wrong.  Of course black people should not have the vote because they do not currently support Republican policies, so disenfranchising them in whatever way possible is obviously a correct and moral position to take.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on October 08, 2020, 05:22:30 PM
Quote
I find it ironic you would take this position given that the entire DNC mantra once Bernie dropped out of the primary was "you have to support us to stop Trump." The argument was literally to put their morals aside (for those who hated Hillary) in order to combine to defeat the enemy. So if you want to talk about using any means to secure power, look no further than your own party.

I'm disappointed, Fenring, that you utterly missed the point.

Government officials are given power to use in governing, not in advancing their particular political party or their families bank accounts.

Party officials are given power to win elections for their party.  In what way would trying to encourage people to vote for your party, even if it meant not voting for their first choice, be a misuse of the power they were given?  ???

Quote
In terms of using power in office to influence the future of you, your followers, and your party, isn't that literally what both parties do as a matter of course? I don't see why it should be suddenly seen as abhorrent when it's Trump doing it.

It's abhorrent when either side, or anyone, does it.  What is even a greater abhorrence is when people start to believe that it is the way it should be. That it is "business as usual," or, even worse, "of course, we want them to do it" for whatever reason.   >:(

When elected officials use their power to govern to enrich themselves and/or their parties/followers, then good governance becomes secondary.  As does fairness, democracy, justice and the rule of law.  When that goes out the window, so does the part of our country that makes it great.  You might as well move to Russia then.  :'(
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on October 09, 2020, 01:01:15 PM
I'm disappointed, Fenring, that you utterly missed the point.

No, WS, you utterly miss the point. You cannot divide up government this, elected that, officials this, and say that this is localized to how they manage their affairs (for example, corruptly) and then separate out everyday people and their mentalities. These are, in not the same, following from each other closely. Officials, first of all, literally come from the populace with its mentality. Secondly, the people observe what those above do and take note of it; take heart of it in fact. But as it's a revolving door of morality, they will affect each other with constant feedback. The above and the below can drive each other down into the ground, or raise things up. Your idea is that officials have a different standard, or need to be serious about their ethics whereas everyday people - eh, what do you expect of them, really. But it's not that simple. If the people as a whole have adopted as "you need to do what it takes to win!" mentality - whether this follows from or led to the realpolitik thinking of those in government - then it is parallel to politicians who believe that it's truly the greatest good to set aside decency now to get the good guys into power. As long as your side is always seen as the good guys then this ends up being tautological; of course anything we do is good and worth it. And it's not just getting people into office, a the 'do anything it takes' approach has been applied lately to the social sphere as well, where any number of expletives, threats, and other means have been used to win the cultural war on the far-left front. It's quite scary to read the average posts I'm seeing daily on social media, and these aren't even from radical protester types, they're just 'regular people'. So again, these different areas are all linked at least obliquely.

Quote
It's abhorrent when either side, or anyone, does it.  What is even a greater abhorrence is when people start to believe that it is the way it should be. That it is "business as usual," or, even worse, "of course, we want them to do it" for whatever reason.   >:(

Not sure if any of this is directed at my comments, or whether you're joining me in venting about corruption in government. If I had my way the structure of elected positions would be so strict that most people would beg not to occupy them. Do not mistake as assessment of facts with what I want or don't want.

Quote
When elected officials use their power to govern to enrich themselves and/or their parties/followers, then good governance becomes secondary.  As does fairness, democracy, justice and the rule of law.  When that goes out the window, so does the part of our country that makes it great.  You might as well move to Russia then.  :'(

Well, duh. Democracy only works if the people deserve it through their character. Bad behavior and bad motives will cause a democracy to be as corrupt as anything else.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on October 09, 2020, 01:05:22 PM
Yes, but you should be able to understand why they are wrong.  Of course black people should not have the vote because they do not currently support Republican policies, so disenfranchising them in whatever way possible is obviously a correct and moral position to take.

I was responding to your comment that when politicians do things only for their own benefit it's wrong. My point is it's probably rarely the case that it's *only* for their benefit. And we've had this particular discussion before regarding Trump in particular. Whether I like or approve of *any* actions politicians take is irrelevant when discussing what their personal motive is for doing it, which is what you are addressing.

Unless you're trying to go down the 'consequences only' road, where if it ends up only benefitting them then that is treated as the motive even though it's an assessment of the result. But by that standard corruption ends up being equivalent to inefficiency, so I'll assume for now you don't mean this and that you mean the actual thinking in the head of the person acting. In which case while I would agree that it happens frequently that powerful people do things only for their own benefit, on a case by case basis it can't be assumed automatically.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 09, 2020, 01:13:00 PM
I was responding to your comment that when politicians do things only for their own benefit it's wrong.
That's not what I said. 

What I did say is that using one's political office in order to benefit themselves exclusively is absolutely wrong.

Aside from that, to pretend that doing something for oneself will benefit the country because the self in question is better than the alternative is to argue in circles.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on October 09, 2020, 02:11:20 PM
Aside from that, to pretend that doing something for oneself will benefit the country because the self in question is better than the alternative is to argue in circles.

I don't know why you keep arguing these points with me as if you're trying to convince me about what is right and wrong. I am stating what I take to be facts, or at least the best we can do as ascertaining the facts, of the mindset of certain people. Making statements that attempt to describe how people think is only debatable if you believe there is a better way to explain how they think. You telling me what will or won't actually benefit the country is literally off-topic.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on October 09, 2020, 02:21:25 PM
Aside from that, to pretend that doing something for oneself will benefit the country because the self in question is better than the alternative is to argue in circles.

I don't know why you keep arguing these points with me as if you're trying to convince me about what is right and wrong. I am stating what I take to be facts, or at least the best we can do as ascertaining the facts, of the mindset of certain people. Making statements that attempt to describe how people think is only debatable if you believe there is a better way to explain how they think. You telling me what will or won't actually benefit the country is literally off-topic.

Perhaps if the question is reworded.
Is using one's political office in order to benefit oneself (personal benefit) wrong?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on October 09, 2020, 03:14:35 PM
Perhaps if the question is reworded.
Is using one's political office in order to benefit oneself (personal benefit) wrong?

You are just as confused about what we're arguing about. We are not discussing whether using a public office for personal gain is good or bad. I think it is plain that it's not good. We are discussing (or we are meant to be discussing) whether it is plausible to in fact state that a person in that position is actually using that office for *purely* personal gain. It is important to note whether the main reason for a particular action is personal gain or not, because many actions taken in politics will both help them personally as well as achieving public goals. This is what was discussed previously regarding Trump, whether we can decisively say "Oh, he only did that for personal profit" or whether we don't have enough information to be able to make that conclusion. My general irritation is people thinking that ascribing bad motives to Trump because he is Trump counts as actual proof of anything. That we may all agree that he doesn't inspire confidence in his motives is one thing, but that does not suddenly give us license to 'know' what he is thinking with a particular act. I would have thought that all of what I just wrote is trivial, but hey...

And I will repeat: if what we're discussing is conflicts of interest in public office, then I seriously do not think you guys are taking nearly seriously enough the extent to which U.S. politics is riddled with gamebreaking conflicts of interest. Fix the system, and then no need to chase after every person abusing it (i.e. most of them).
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: DonaldD on October 09, 2020, 04:33:43 PM
We're still talking about Trump using his office to declassify emails from 2016, less than one month before the 2020 election, emails that had not led to any indictments in the past 4 years, right?  And if you are looking for more context, he is also now publicly calling on his AG to arrest his predecessor in office, his previous opponent, and his current opponent again...

Maybe you weren't trying to act as an apologist, but if so, it wasn't obvious.  And if you are really working the equivalency angle, no, there simply haven't been any other presidents who have used their position to attempt to arrest their opponents.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Fenring on October 09, 2020, 05:13:57 PM
We're still talking about Trump using his office to declassify emails from 2016, less than one month before the 2020 election, emails that had not led to any indictments in the past 4 years, right?  And if you are looking for more context, he is also now publicly calling on his AG to arrest his predecessor in office, his previous opponent, and his current opponent again...

Maybe you weren't trying to act as an apologist, but if so, it wasn't obvious.  And if you are really working the equivalency angle, no, there simply haven't been any other presidents who have used their position to attempt to arrest their opponents.

Well let's put it this way: I am generally happy when documents like this are declassified, and in general prefer more transparency to less. I am happy when Wikileaks releases damning information even though it is likely done through unlawful means sometimes (notwithstanding the fact that unlawfully revealing unlawful behavior makes the whole issue quite muddy to classify morally).

In this case we're talking about an action which in isolation I would tend to celebrate, but which is timed to advantage Trump (we can probably agree on that). That would appear to make the effect of that action a mix of benefit to the country and benefit to Trump, so long as you understand I consider it to be good for the country for such information to be transparent. But the bar you need to set when assessing an action isn't whether it will benefit Trump; an effective politician no doubt tries to marry public good with his own good regularly. The bar is that it really has no discernable benefit to anyone other than Trump.

I think the fact that the documents in question are about Hillary, who you are sure isn't really guilty of anything, is part of why you're quick to see this as merely another attack move and nothing more. And hey, it may well be an attack move. But change the subject and imagine instead it was Biden releasing information about Trump's dealings with Putin at this time; or we can make it more neutral and imagine that some arbitrary President decides to issue a series of pardons close to election time of people who were really wronged by the justice system. The fact that the timing is obviously strategic is one thing, but the worth of the action another. You seem to be quite quickly dismissing any relevance in terms of good effect or intent in the declassification other than Trump trying to steal an election. But whereas you worry that I'm being a partisan here, in fact where I'm coming from is that I basically do want those documents declassified, and I don't care when it happens. In my view, let him have his little win if it gives him one, in order to do something I basically approve of. Heck, let him do all manner of things I approve of near election time, that will suit me fine.

And for clarity, I would be just as equally happy for Biden to be releasing damning information about Bush or some other Presidential predecessor that would tarnish the Republicans. In fact I would be overjoyed for more light to be shed on Bush 43's Presidency, even this far after the fact. Let them do it!
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: rightleft22 on October 09, 2020, 05:46:23 PM
Quote
Trump; an effective politician no doubt tries to marry public good with his own good regularly

I can't agree with that statement or perhaps I would reorder it. as in Trump very much the politician focus is his on good over the public good regularly.  Trump is a transaction politician whos starting point is whats in it for him.  We can debate if that makes him 'effective'

Hillary emails have been investigated many time and if their were incriminating Trump would be pressing charges not just declassifying them.

Perhaps such transparency is a good thing however the timing is all about benefiting Trump.  That you can look away from such ethical and leadership principles for the your definition of greater good of transparency is fine.

That does make a statement. And as many feel the way you do is it no wonder we get the kind of leadership that we do?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: wmLambert on October 09, 2020, 06:48:35 PM
...Trump is a transaction politician whos starting point is whats in it for him.

Completely untrue. Trump is the penultimate patriot and wants to do what is best for the nation. His business took a hit when he became President, and it may never recover. What he has always focused on are those campaign promises he made and continues to achieve. That strawman you talk about is not real.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 10, 2020, 02:49:50 AM
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-attacks-moderator-second-debate-170817141.html

"President Donald Trump decried on Friday the planned moderator for the erstwhile second presidential debate over a Thursday night tweet that the moderator claims he did not send.

A post to C-SPAN anchor Steve Scully’s Twitter account on Thursday asked Anthony Scaramucci, the onetime White House communications director for Trump who’s since become an ardent critic of the president, “should I respond to trump” in a since-deleted message. Trump and his allies quickly pointed to the social media message as evidence that Scully is biased against the president."

------------------------------------------------------------

Sure accounts get hacked but doesn't it stretch credulity just a little bit that someone would hack his account and that's the message they'd send?

Also, I'm not sure if anyone here has noticed but the message boards on yahoo have been disabled for some time now. That's clear manipulation by the media because the posts there often pointed out the clear bias and false information and refusal to dig deep on stories or even dig a little bit when the information wasn't conducive to the various narratives the media choose to convey.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: wmLambert on October 10, 2020, 09:31:39 PM
It seems Steve Turley has videoed the best news for Trump, yet. According to Helmut Norpoth, who has a near perfect record of his election algorithm, Trump wins in a landslide of 362 electoral votes to 176.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3b3aNdYnv4
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on October 11, 2020, 02:47:38 PM
The Norpoth prediction is months old at this point and I've previously brought it up.

There are the other indicators which also would tend to strongly indicate Trump despite what the opinion polls currently reflect, but "shy voter" reporting can easily account for what is going on there, given how reluctant people are likely to be about admitting to their electoral support of Trump.

56% of Americans think they're better off now than they were 4 years ago? In the height of a pandemic? And also beating out the numbers of every other prior president in the history of that question being asked? No president who polled above the mid-40's on that number has failed to be re-elected at this time.

Then there are the other "it's the economy" oriented questions which also skew strongly in favor of Trump over Biden which would also strongly suggest Biden should be in serious trouble in the polls. People tend to vote their wallet, and their wallet for most Americans is best protected by voting Trump according to their own responses.

By the same token, I'm perfectly happy to see polling indicating "a Biden blowout" at this point as that just further motivates Trump supporters to turn up and vote and while making other possible Biden voters think they don't need to if they haven't already.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDeamon on October 11, 2020, 02:55:56 PM
Also in light of the recent Gallup poll with that 56% number for "Yes, we're doing better than 4 years ago."

Calls into further question:

Speaking of partisanship, got a laugh out of this:
The (New York Times) YouTube video goes into detail on "the keys" and in the course of it, the good professor admits to being a Democrat and how hard it can be to keep partisanship out.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/05/professor-allan-lichtman-predicts-joe-biden-beat-donald-trump/3304680001/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp_Uuz9k7Os

Of his 13 keys, he scored 6 keys in favor of Trump, and 7 in favor of Biden. As such, he's called it for Biden.

But the problem is, in this cycle, things are a bit more ambiguous.

6 keys are clearly indicating Trump. But as for the other 7?
For the ones where Trump was scored as "false":
1) "Midterm gains" - Scored as false, as the Democrats gained seats, not the republicans, so clearly a pro-Biden marker.
2) "Strong Short Term economy" - He scored that as false, because of the economic disruption form Covid.
3) "Strong Long Term economy" - He scored that as false, because of the economic disruption from Covid.
4) "No Social Unrest" - Obviously that does support Biden.
5) "No scandal" - He scored this as false. But the "trump voters" on the other hand may disagree, particularly as it looks like what became the Mueller Investigation is looking to be poised to become ObamaGate in the eyes of most Trump voters, even if the dems disagree. Likewise for most Trump voters, the impeachment was only a scandal in regards to how the Democrats conducted themselves.
6) "Major foreign/Military success" - He scored this as false. "Trump voters" may disagree on that.
7) "Charismatic incumbent" - Scored as false. I'll give him a pass on his rationale, given Trump's difficulty even reaching 50% approval and retaining it. Of course, this could arguably be "split" as he also scored "true" for "uncharismatic opponent" in Trump's favor. A Charismatic candidate is likely to have a better "connection" with their base, and thus better turnout than an opponent who lacks any meaningful charisma...

So of those 7 markers that he said were false, I'll readily agree with 3 of them(1, 4, and 7).
ISIS/ISIL and the renegotiated NAFTA aside, I guess I'll grant #6, but there is an asterisk to attach to that one.
Given the Keystone cops routine the Administration has ongoing, I'll leave #5 as mostly valid.

That gets Biden to 5 keys to Trump's 6. Which puts things entirely in the context of the economy, and the economic circumstances as a result of Covid are just so outside of the norm that I don't think any real definitive predictions can be made. So I'm inclined to split the result, if only because polling in the past has indicated people think Trump would be better able to facilitate a recovery... But the wildcard in the mix is Covid need to reach a point where a recovery can begin to properly start. Something which Trump obviously isn't helping with, but then, nobody seems to have managed to pull off a safe and effective reopening as of yet, including China with their totalitarian controls in place. So it is hard to objectively hold Trump accountable for that. So my own scoring using his criteria ends up as a Trump 7, Biden 6 decision at this time. So it indicates a Trump win, not a Biden one.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 05, 2021, 01:26:51 PM
https://news.yahoo.com/this-week-in-bidenomics-delta-blues-193837280.html

"The surging Delta variant isn’t Biden’s fault..."

Well actually Biden is to blame because he decided against science to take off the masks instead of taking the gloves off to fight Covid like he said he would with his usual false bravado, "I'm going to shut down the virus, not the country."

It's amazing how the media covers for this guy and again we see a story with absolutely no mention of masks while it goes on and on and on about vaccines. As usual I did a control-F looking for masks and it's nowhere except in the caption for the photo describing how Biden is adjusting his mask. How these people ignore the elephant in the room astounds.

At the worst possible time, just as delta was taking off, Biden decides to play patty-cake politics with the virus and say it's safe for the vaccinated (and anyone who wants to play vaccinated on tv) to take off their masks. He didn't shut down the virus. He opened the doors wide and offered it an ingraved invitation.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 05, 2021, 01:37:54 PM


We also had the media lie with a fake fact check about Biden checking his watch during a ceremony for the U.S. soldiers killed by Biden in Afghanistan. Eighteen months without a U.S. combat death in Afghanistan until Biden sounds his bugle of retreat and leaves our troops vulnerable to get hit by ISIS. Video evidence forced a media correction to their correction.


And the media fact check on the 18 months of no American combat deaths in Afghanistan quibbles by pointing out that there were non-hostile deaths just to try to muddy the waters while pretending they want to clear them.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/01/fact-check-11-us-service-members-died-afghanistan-2020/5622880001/
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on September 05, 2021, 02:24:07 PM
U.S. soldiers killed by Biden in Afghanistan.

I know you aren't a moron, why do you post such blatant idiocy?  Biden didn't kill any soldiers.  If you want to blame someone who's actions in the abstract increased the risk of attack.  That would be Trump who freed 5000 Taliban soldiers, and then illegally drew the troops down below 5000, to 2500.  That then created such a small force of US military in the country that they could no longer defend most of the country.  That then forced either the US to reinvade - probably requiring an enormous surge in the 100,000 soldier range to restablize, or complete Trump's withdrawal.  Since most of the US was in favor of withdrawal, Biden completed Trump's withdrawal.

Quote
Eighteen months without a U.S. combat death in Afghanistan until Biden sounds his bugle of retreat and leaves our troops vulnerable to get hit by ISIS. Video evidence forced a media correction to their correction.

The triggering event was Trump drawing down the troops illegally and freeing 5000 Taliban which completely destablized the country.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 05, 2021, 03:39:29 PM
Biden says the buck stops with him and defended his decision.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-afghanistan-withdrawal-taliban-decision/

"President Biden said he stands "squarely behind his decision" to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan on Monday but admitted that the swift collapse of the central government caught the U.S. off guard, telling the nation "the buck stops with me" as chaotic efforts to evacuate U.S. personnel and Afghan allies from Kabul continue."

If Biden says the buck stops with him then that means he gets the blame when things go sideways. Or over a cliff.

If he wanted to withdrawal he should have made sure it was an orderly process that didn't put our troops unnecessarily in harm's way. He failed to do that.

I'm rewatching the series "24" and it has stood up well even after all this time. I was referencing that in the covid thread when I brought up the part about how our government will not hesitate to deceive and outright lie when the priority it not to cause a panic. It's just interesting that this time our government meaning Biden told the truth. We're getting out of Dodge in a hurry and it did cause a panic and got people killed including our troops. A slower and more orderly process with Afghan security covering the more dangerous positions like they've been doing for the last 18 months would have left our troops in a better position from a safety vantage. Biden decided not to do that. That's on him.

It's also astute how right the show gets the incompetence of the people in charge of making the big decisions.

Whatever Trump did, Biden could have changed it. He changed everything else, basically acting as the Bizarro Biden to Trump's Super Presidency so it's interesting how on this one issue where it was a massive disaster it seems like there could be no deviation allowed from Trump's plan. I think Trump pushed the withdrawal back before too so why couldn't it be pushed back again, stringing the Taliban along? But in any case since Biden said the Buck stops with him so Biden owns it.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on September 05, 2021, 04:19:33 PM
Whatever Trump did, Biden could have changed it.

Are you trying to prove me wrong with my claim that you aren't a moron?

If you drop a vase and it shatters.  I can choose to sweep the pieces into the trash, or try to glue it back together.

There isn't a way to reverse entropy and have the vase magically whole again.

Once the 5000 Taliban were set free, it would take similar resources to capture them and jail them as it did initially.  Presumably something similar to the resources we expended in the past.  Biden couldn't say "Hey Taliban, Trumps decision was amazingly stupid, so can all of those who he set free could just go back into jail and on death row - that'd be great".

So he was stuck with continuing the withdrawal unless the US public was willing to stomach many trillions of dollars more to reverse Trump's actions.

Similarly once Trump pulled the 2,500 American troops and we could no longer defend much the of the Afghan territory, any territory capture by the Taliban, would require similar expenditures to recapture it. So again unless the US was willing to spend similar amounts that we spent in taking territory, that wasn't an option.

If a game switches players half way through, the strategic blunders of the previous player are sunk costs.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 07, 2021, 07:58:44 AM
We didn't have to really fight the Taliban, just continue to provide support to the Afghans who were fighting them. We weren't even supporting them anymore. We left them out in the cold like the Monday morning trash. Was there really no way to organize a troop pullout while still supporting the Afghan military with logistics? A smart person would have figured it out. Twenty years of training and we didn't have them trained enough so that we could fly in resources and they could distribute them? We couldn't offer outsourced maintenance services for their equipment? We couldn't help them coordinate their logistics with remote technology? There was no possible way to support them in their fight against the Taliban with drone strikes carried out from our operators in America with the support of the Afghan military handling and servicing the actual drones in Afghanistan? In our "deal" with the Taliban we couldn't have included a fine print rider stipulating that they couldn't take over the country as soon as we left, and they didn't even wait that long. We couldn't offer any support at all to the Afghan Vice President who was still fighting in Panjshir province? Not even a kind word?

Obviously a lot of people can explain all of this much better than I can. For instance:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/joe-biden-has-treated-britain-with-disdain-over-afghanistan

"Congratulations, Joe. No US President has simultaneously alienated (and abandoned) so many of his compatriots or exacerbated threats to the West with such efficiency as Biden this past week. Biden defiantly sees ‘an extraordinary success’ in the chaotic and deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan, but disaster currently flows in the President’s wake. And one of the consequences is the mortal danger to America’s most important diplomatic and military alliance: the UK-US Special Relationship.

Biden’s speech on Tuesday was a deranged, dramatic tragedy. He lashed out at critics of his calamity which saw the Taliban reinstalled in power and strengthened with new deadly capabilities. Though entirely of Biden’s making, he took every opportunity to blame everyone but himself for his failures.

No matter the spin, in Biden there is a void of judgment and ability to lead. As Douglas Murray noted over the weekend, tragically ‘it took America gifting Afghanistan back to the Taliban for so many people to realise this.’ For a man chosen only because he wasn’t Trump, the bar was set very low. Biden has failed to get close to it."

I gotta give Obama some credit here for really calling it when he warned us:

"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f.... things up."
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: NobleHunter on September 07, 2021, 11:29:30 AM
Entirely of Biden's making? How many troops were in Afghanistan when he took office? This criticism would seem a lot more sincere if it wasn't so one sided.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 07, 2021, 02:45:18 PM
Let's put Afghanistan in a different context.

No one in the world had a better plan for the evacuation than the Biden Administration (if you disagree, show us the evidence). Among national political figures, no one had better insights a decade ago that the Afghan regime was never going to be able to stand on its own than Joe Biden, who was the loudest voice in the Obama Administration for reducing our involvement then. 

And if you look at 20 years of comments from those now criticizing Joe Biden, can you name a single politician, pundit, or Ornery poster whose comments on Afghanistan have not been proven more wrong by actual events? If so, please tell us who.

Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 07, 2021, 05:20:17 PM
Biden lies about Afghanistan:

https://nypost.com/2021/09/01/6-lies-president-joe-biden-told-about-afghanistan/

Among others:

"LIE: “Your own intelligence community has assessed that the Afghan government will likely collapse,” a reporter told the president July 8, to which a defensive Biden responded, “That is not true.” He added that “the likelihood there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.”

TRUTH: In fact, Biden knew the Taliban were overtaking the Afghan government — and asked Ghani to lie about it. The perception “is that things are not going well in terms of the fight against the Taliban,” Biden said. “And there is a need, whether it is true or not, there is a need to project a different picture.” Ghani gave him the facts: “We are facing a full-scale invasion, composed of Taliban, full Pakistani planning and logistical support, and at least 10-15,000 international terrorists, predominantly Pakistanis thrown into this.” Biden ignored them.

LIE: Biden vowed to continue providing the Afghan army with air support. “I’ll insist we continue to keep the commitments we made of providing close air support, making sure that their air force functions and is operable,” he said Aug. 10. He’d made the promise to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in a July 23 phone call that was leaked Wednesday. “We will continue to provide close air support,” Biden said. “And all the way through the end of August, and who knows what after that.”

TRUTH: The Wall Street Journal reported Aug. 14, “In the wake of President Biden’s withdrawal decision, the US pulled its air support, intelligence and contractors servicing Afghanistan’s planes and helicopters. That meant the Afghan military simply couldn’t operate anymore.” That puts paid to Biden’s repeated claim that the Afghan army simply folded because it didn’t want to fight."

--------------------------------------------------------------

Biden promised to continue "to keep the commitments we made of providing close air support, making sure that their air force functions and is operable...” at least until the end of August and maybe even after that. So why not keep that promise?

Why make it then if he wasn't going to keep it?

Before our official entrance into WWII we helped Britain with the Lend-Lease Act. We couldn't do something similar to help Afghanistan without putting our troops into harm's way?

And a big issue is how Biden was saying publicly that total Taliban takeover was highly unlikely while it seems like it private he knew that was not true, that he was lying through his teeth to the public, and now he says that the chaos was inevitable?
Why would there be chaos if the Afghan government was functioning properly because the Taliban didn't take it over?

We got lie after lie after lie about Afghanistan by Biden and most of the media covered for him. As usual, the most important thing is not to cause a panic. Well, at least put it off for as long as possible by lying and lying and lying and then just watch all hell break loose.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on September 07, 2021, 05:25:22 PM
Biden didn't kill any soldiers.  If you want to blame someone who's actions in the abstract increased the risk of attack.  That would be Trump who freed 5000 Taliban soldiers, and then illegally drew the troops down below 5000, to 2500.  That then created such a small force of US military in the country that they could no longer defend most of the country.  That then forced either the US to reinvade - probably requiring an enormous surge in the 100,000 soldier range to restablize, or complete Trump's withdrawal.  Since most of the US was in favor of withdrawal, Biden completed Trump's withdrawal.

The agreement with the Taliban is one of Trump's biggest (legitimate) mistakes.  The agreement was poorly constructed, with absolutely no verification mechanisms or objective tests for the Taliban to meet and was being breached by the Taliban almost from the moment it was entered into.

The 5000 prisoner release is not a mistake, if you have an effective agreement that generates a cease fire and peace.  To the extent that those 5000 are POWs they would be released anyway, to the extent they were war criminals they should not have been released.  However, even war criminals are often part of the post-war amnesty to a certain extent - they may be subject to new trials afterwards.

Even after it was obvious that the Taliban were not living up to their commitments Trump continued to implement and support the agreement, even going so far as to criticise Biden delaying the exit from May 1st to Sept. 11.

But that said, excusing Biden for his role is complete nonsense.  Biden's the President and he has been for eight months.  The deal was failing before he took office, and Congress told Biden in February that the deal was failing and needed substantial reworking, including the introduction of objective compliance milestones and the ditching of the hard time table. Not even 3 weeks later Biden reconfirmed that he was going to continue with the deal and exit Afghanistan (intending on the May 1st line at the time). 

At no point during his Presidency was the Taliban complying with the Agreement, and at any point he could have reversed the retreat based on breach of the Agreement.  He choose not to do so, and he choose that deliberately.  It's obvious from the leaked communications that he lied about his knowledge of what would occur.  At no point was he incapable of ordering an effective response to maintain a safe evacuation.

The best spin I can put on it for both Biden and Trump is that they seem convinced there was no good exit, and that long term the Taliban will operate as a government and not just as a bunch of terrorists.  They may even be correct, or it may just have been that they saw the writing on the wall that no matter when we left the Taliban was going to take over and there was no use in pissing them off if we weren't going to continue to occupy Afghanistan. 

Quote
The triggering event was Trump drawing down the troops illegally and freeing 5000 Taliban which completely destablized the country.

The triggering events were many, starting with the deal Trump cut, including the election Trump lost (and the open acknowledgement of Biden's weakness), including Biden's repeated commitment to the "peace" plan and both Presidents ignoring the Taliban's violations.  The 5000 release wasn't much of a trigger, but the release of the 400 that were held for crimes should not have occurred without real progress, or maybe at all. 

The Afghan forces were capable of holding the country.  But I think both Presidents came to realize that those forces would not do so.  There was no commitment to the country, the soldiers weren't patriotic, they weren't committed to something because it was bigger than themselves, and they faced fanatics.  Young men with passion for their homeland were more likely to join the Taliban to expel foreigners from their country than the defense force to get a piece of the foreign graft.  Without a sense of a country or purpose no army can stand.

Let's put Afghanistan in a different context.

No one in the world had a better plan for the evacuation than the Biden Administration (if you disagree, show us the evidence).

Not clear what you "accept" as evidence, but how about -evacuate civilians before the military.  Seems pretty straight forward.  Mandatory evacuation of allies.  Given what Biden knew, its pretty clear he knew the country would fall almost immediately - despite spreading a lie on that point - there's really no reason that we shouldn't have gone all in to make sure our Afghan allies got out.  Unless of course you think "peace" with the Taliban is possible and worth it, in which case, you wouldn't want to issue any new aggravation during the exit even if the Taliban acts moderately terrible.   That's Real Politik at its worst, but that may be what occurred and why Biden is willing to lie about what he could have done and declare this a success.

Quote
Among national political figures, no one had better insights a decade ago that the Afghan regime was never going to be able to stand on its own than Joe Biden, who was the loudest voice in the Obama Administration for reducing our involvement then.

Assuming you believe that, and there are other less flattering reasons to believe Joe had the position he did, doesn't that just further compound Biden's guilt for lying about the collapse?  If he had no illusions, then his pushing the Afghan President to put out false information about how well things were going seems callously designed as an attempt to keep a lid on things just long enough for him to pull out and leave our allies to face the firing squads.  It would literally look like he sold out all of our Afghan allies to try and save just the citizens and soldiers based on the callous knowledge that Americans care about dead Americans far more than even thousands of our non-American allies betrayed in murdered.

That's not moral courage.   
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 07, 2021, 05:30:22 PM
One big question is if we knew everything that happened was going to happen should and would we have done the exact same thing we did anyway?

Biden supporters and Biden himself seem to be saying yes, absolutely.  It went as well as it possibly could have. No regrets.

It's a very dangerous combination having our government not admit its mistakes and having the people who put them in power refuse to hold them accountable.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on September 07, 2021, 06:44:08 PM
One big question is if we knew everything that happened was going to happen should and would we have done the exact same thing we did anyway?

Biden supporters and Biden himself seem to be saying yes, absolutely.

I think that's true.  Once we decided that the Taliban would rule the country in the near future, our focus changed to not killing them and creating "new" incidents for them to be outraged about.  Look at it through the lens of a new government in Afghanistan, one that is negative but not necessarily actively hostile to you.  Do you order strikes knowing that you're protecting a failed government, that will be out of power immediately, and knowing that you're literally attacking the new government?

Real Politik.

Quote
It went as well as it possibly could have.

It did not, no version of objective reality agrees that it did.  Propaganda on this point will be relentless.

Quote
No regrets.

If it's true its because they're social paths.  I happen to think they have lots of regrets, but I'm even less charitable, and I think they regret the media impact more than the lost lives.

Quote
It's a very dangerous combination having our government not admit its mistakes and having the people who put them in power refuse to hold them accountable.

The danger is in having a "media" that covers up the governments mistakes, and a polity that actively supports a government even when its lying to them (and gets caught).  Every area of poiltics is completely tainted with partisan alter calls to the point that no policy - no matter how horrible - that isn't directly related to a sacred cow has any consequence.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: TheDrake on September 08, 2021, 12:13:42 PM
I don't know what TV news talking heads are doing, but wapo, BBC, and nyt have been pointing to the withdrawal as a disaster and splattering stories everywhere about the negative. Most polls show that biden voters agree and that as a result his approval overall has plunged.

So I don't get this concept of unwavering support without criticism.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 08, 2021, 12:36:22 PM
Cherry,

If Biden thought the Afghani government was likely to fail, should he have said so in public? What would have been the consequences of him saying, "There's a good chance that the Afghani government is likely to collapse."

I actually believe that the US government under-estimated the weakness of the Ghani regime (in part because of misleading inputs from Pentagon leadership -- something that Biden was privately criticizing a decade earlier). But still, if telling the truth about the regime's weakness would increase that weakness, what would you recommend that a President of the United States should do?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 08, 2021, 12:38:57 PM
Seriati,

Can you identify a single Republican politician or pundit who had a better plan for the end-game Afghanistan? If so, can you please provide a link? 
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Wayward Son on September 08, 2021, 12:53:36 PM
Quote
It's a very dangerous combination having our government not admit its mistakes and having the people who put them in power refuse to hold them accountable.

Hey, we survived four long years of the Trump Administration.  So how bad could it be?  ;D

Because the Trump Administration was nothing but a government not admitting, and actively denying and often lying about, its mistakes, and the Republicans refusing to hold them accountable, if not actively supporting them and their denials.

And if you want to hold our government accountable, how do you propose to hold the Trump Administration accountable for this debacle?  Or the Obama Administration?  Or the Bush 2 Administration?  Or should the Biden Administration alone pay for it, because they are the last ones holding the bag and it's politically convenient for Conservatives to do so? :)
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on September 08, 2021, 05:03:20 PM
Seriati,

Can you identify a single Republican politician or pundit who had a better plan for the end-game Afghanistan? If so, can you please provide a link?

Beats me, not aware that anyone but the President and the Pentagon are responsible for that kind of plan.  Is it your experience that politicians routinely publish some kind of battle plans for others to review for military situations over which they don't have direct control?  Virtually every aspirational statement published was better than what we got from Biden in reality.

If you want to see what the bipartisan commission recommended to Biden in February it's here:  https://www.usip.org/publications/2021/02/afghanistan-study-group-final-report-pathway-peace-afghanistan (https://www.usip.org/publications/2021/02/afghanistan-study-group-final-report-pathway-peace-afghanistan). 

Otherwise, I view your "challenge" as a demand for nonsense.  Virtually anyone could have come up with a better plan than what we got.  In fact, it's hard to imagine that you can do this challenge in reverse.  Can you site to the "worse plans" that were put forward by "Democrat politicians or pundits" that establish this was the best one possible?

How many plans did you review in reaching your conclusion that this was the "best" plan?
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 22, 2021, 10:30:15 AM
Everything I'm thinking as I look at story after story, this author just put into words.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/573322-the-press-ever-so-politely-turns-on-biden-a-troubles-mount

"It's almost pointless to try to imagine what kind of press treatment any Republican would receive under similar circumstances. We've seen that movie one too many times.

And then there's the most insidious bias of all: the bias of omission."

------------------------------------------------

It's no longer the mainstream media or even the lamestream media. What we've got now is full blown Baghdad Bob media.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: Seriati on September 23, 2021, 05:36:02 PM
That's one heck of a link Cherry.  Hard to imagine how anyone can defend this administration at all, or defend the media with a straight face.  Our system can't work if the media is constantly lying, covering up and ignoring news solely for partisan advantage.
Title: Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
Post by: LetterRip on September 23, 2021, 06:53:19 PM
Quote
With multiple vaccines and more than 75 percent of the U.S. population receiving at least one dose, COVID-19 was supposed to be almost an afterthought at this point. Instead, the U.S. daily death toll approaches 2,000.

What is he smoking, it is around 64% of the population has received at least one dose as of September 20th,

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1202065/population-with-covid-vaccine-by-state-us/

Herd immunity for Alpha with an Ro of 4 was at 80% vaccinated  (1 - 1/Ro = .8 )  or so of total population being FULLY vaccinated (partial vaccination gives a lower effectiveness of around .6 So .8/.6 would be 133% of the population needed to be vaccinated for Alpha if everyone only had one dose), given a vaccine effectiveness of 98%.  Delta with an Ro of 8 requires around 87.5% of the total population be FULLY vaccinated if the vaccine were 98% effective, at 80% effective it requires essentially full population to be vaccinated. (87.5/.8 = 110%).

Also almost all the hospitalizations and deaths are from unvaccinated individuals who also refuse to wear masks.  Biden has made an extraordinary effort to ensure everyone has access to vaccines, so it is squarely on those refusing to be vaccinated and refusing to wear masks.

Quote
Violent crime in American cities continues to outpace pre-pandemic numbers.

True, there was a 30% increase in 2020 (Ie during Trump administration), so far about a 10% increase in 2021,

https://www.vox.com/22578430/murder-crime-2020-2021-covid-19-pandemic

Note that other violent crime is actually down,

https://time.com/6086558/us-homicides-violent-crime-rates/

It is rather bizarre "why hasn't Biden completely reversed trends that were occuring under Trump in Biden's first partial year in office".

Quote
Inflation continues to skyrocket, raising deep concerns among voters of all stripes. And voters overwhelmingly blame the guy in charge.

Well people are dumb.  Almost all of the inflation is from increased used car prices because car manufacturers canceled their microchip orders and thus new cars are less available, and from increased lumber prices because lumber mills cut production because they projected demand would be down due to the pandemic.  Both of those happened before Biden was in office.

The border 'surge' - this is largely due to a change in policy by the Trump administration (in response to COVID) that Biden hasn't reversed.  A switch from Apprehensions to Expulsions.  An apprehension the person is taken into custody and thus can't make another attempt until they are released.  An explusion the person might retry again after each expulsion till they give up.  The reason for the change is concern of concentrating people and spreading COVID.

Quote
Through the first nine months of FY 2021, when CBP recorded a total of 1,119,204 border encounters, the number of “unique encounters” (people who have not been taken into custody in the previous 12 months) was 690,718 . By comparison, over the same period in FY 2019, CBP recorded 780,479 border encounters, of which 721,328 were unique encounters—over 30,000 more than in FY 2021.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/rising-border-encounters-in-2021

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/13/migrant-encounters-at-u-s-mexico-border-are-at-a-21-year-high/

The repeated expulsions appear to be single adult males - mostly farm immigrants.  So once harvest season ends, it will probably return to baseline.

Regarding COVID-19 boosters, he got approval for the vulnerable groups, those at less risk the FDA wants more information, which is reasonably prudent.