192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Tue 2 Jan, 2018 07:28 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I love how liberals reliably deny that there is a liberal bias in the MSM. It's quite an accomplishment and you would think they would proud of it.

Of course, they have no problem identifying the conservative bias of Fox News, and much is made of Fox being the leading cable news source even though it's viewership at around 2.3 million pales in comparison to the combined NBC, ABC and CBS viewership of about 23 million.

Of course none of the three broadcast news networks have liberal biases...just ask a liberal. They'll tell you same about the NY Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times and the Boston Globe. All of those papers play it straight down the middle.

None are so blind as those who will not see.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Tue 2 Jan, 2018 07:44 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I remember reading an analysis of media reporting when the US was accused of some sort of bad thing. I don't remember now what it was that we had been accused of, probably some kind of war crime.

When I read about the accusation, I immediately dismissed it as obviously untrue -- similar to the way I automatically dismiss obviously untrue claims against Israel.

According to the analysis, Fox immediately questioned the veracity of the claim, while still reporting that the claim had been made. But all the rest of the media reported the claim as if it were absolutely true.

And of course, the claim turned out to be completely untrue.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  5  
Tue 2 Jan, 2018 07:55 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
There is a common retort that says ‘facts have a liberal bias’.

What does the liberal bias in the news look like to you (its different for everyone) and what needs to be done to eliminate it you think?
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
oralloy
 
  -4  
Tue 2 Jan, 2018 08:25 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
(Ya gotta scroll up and down and back and forth to see it all, eh?)

Instead of:
Code:[img]..........[/img]

Try this:
Code:[img width=800]..........[/img]
Below viewing threshold (view)
layman
 
  -4  
Tue 2 Jan, 2018 08:30 pm
@oralloy,
Thanks for the tip. I'll try to remember that, but I probably won't. I've done it before, but I plumb forgot how I done it when I posted that.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -4  
Tue 2 Jan, 2018 08:36 pm
@oralloy,
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSfSBNSVwAAwPUb.jpg:large

Yeah, that's more better.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Tue 2 Jan, 2018 11:56 pm
Here is a thought-provoking piece from one of blatham's currently favorite conservatives (read it and see if you can guess why this may be), David French of National Review.

French is a very bright man, and he knows it...he knows it too much, which is to say he's full of himself and as someone who has been a Never-Trumper from the very beginning, it's not at all surprising to see him hold on tightly to his low opinion of Trump the Man.

Quote:

On policy, he’s been far better than I hoped. His temperament, however, has been worse than I feared.


I tend to agree with him here, but I draw up well short of the apparent dread and angst he continues to nurture:

Quote:
He’s been more malicious, more deceptive, and more destructively impulsive than I thought he’d be. These are vices that render him dangerous in a true crisis and make an already toxic political culture even more polarized and volatile.


He was on the right track with

Quote:
But I live in the real world, and understand all too well that politics ain’t beanbag. In many ways, the history of American politicians is the history of the loudmouthed, the profane, and the brash. That’s life. That’s politics
. That's Trump.

Obviously, I could be wrong in my estimation of Trump. Like French and many other conservatives (not to mention Americans) I would prefer a lot less of the loudmouthed, profane and brash in my president, but Trump has led a fairly long life that regardless of what one thinks of him, has on many levels been quite successful, and not once did he consume his family, his business and himself in some fireball of impulsive madness. I see no reason to believe he will do so, and take the country with him, within the next three years.

Regardless, he is the president; fairly elected. No matter what he and his aides may have said or done with the Russians, Putin didn't win him the election. It may yet be proven that he is guilty of some crime in this regard although I highly doubt it, and if he is, he should suffer the consequences, but if his presidency is undone because of a toxic political culture wherein political power is the sole determinant of "high crimes & misdemeanors," the ensuing volatile polarization will be far, far greater than anything his tweets can cause.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455057/concerns-about-donald-trump-go-beyond-tone-style?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-01-02&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
layman
 
  -2  
Wed 3 Jan, 2018 01:07 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
There is a chance that a combination of good fortune and strong support from capable advisers will insulate the nation from the worst consequences of Trump’s profound flaws.


A "chance," eh? With good fortune.

Wait, good fortune alone won't do it. All the luck in the world could NEVER save us from the "worst consequences."

There must also be "strong support from capable advisers."

Well, OK, let's say he has those two things. Now we're saved from the "worst consquences," right?

HELL, NO!

Then there will be a "chance," that's all.

Well, at least we'll have a chance that we'll be OK, eh?

No, nobody said that. That "chance" is only that we'll be saved from the "worst consequences." That certainly doesn't guarantee that we'll be OK.
Even assuming that far-fetched possibility materializes, we could still be left with really, really, really, I mean, like, REALLY bad consequences. They just wouldn't be the worst possible consequences.
hightor
 
  7  
Wed 3 Jan, 2018 03:55 am
The Republicans’ Fake Investigations

By GLENN R. SIMPSON and PETER FRITSCHJAN. 2, 2018, NYT

Quote:
A generation ago, Republicans sought to protect President Richard Nixon by urging the Senate Watergate committee to look at supposed wrongdoing by Democrats in previous elections. The committee chairman, Sam Ervin, a Democrat, said that would be “as foolish as the man who went bear hunting and stopped to chase rabbits.”

Today, amid a growing criminal inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, congressional Republicans are again chasing rabbits. We know because we’re their favorite quarry.

In the year since the publication of the so-called Steele dossier — the collection of intelligence reports we commissioned about Donald Trump’s ties to Russia — the president has repeatedly attacked us on Twitter. His allies in Congress have dug through our bank records and sought to tarnish our firm to punish us for highlighting his links to Russia. Conservative news outlets and even our former employer, The Wall Street Journal, have spun a succession of mendacious conspiracy theories about our motives and backers.

We are happy to correct the record. In fact, we already have.

Three congressional committees have heard over 21 hours of testimony from our firm, Fusion GPS. In those sessions, we toppled the far right’s conspiracy theories and explained how The Washington Free Beacon and the Clinton campaign — the Republican and Democratic funders of our Trump research — separately came to hire us in the first place.

We walked investigators through our yearlong effort to decipher Mr. Trump’s complex business past, of which the Steele dossier is but one chapter. And we handed over our relevant bank records — while drawing the line at a fishing expedition for the records of companies we work for that have nothing to do with the Trump case.

Republicans have refused to release full transcripts of our firm’s testimony, even as they selectively leak details to media outlets on the far right. It’s time to share what our company told investigators.

We don’t believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian meddling. As we told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the dossier was taken so seriously because it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp.

The intelligence committees have known for months that credible allegations of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia were pouring in from independent sources during the campaign. Yet lawmakers in the thrall of the president continue to wage a cynical campaign to portray us as the unwitting victims of Kremlin disinformation.

We suggested investigators look into the bank records of Deutsche Bank and others that were funding Mr. Trump’s businesses. Congress appears uninterested in that tip: Reportedly, ours are the only bank records the House Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed.

We told Congress that from Manhattan to Sunny Isles Beach, Fla., and from Toronto to Panama, we found widespread evidence that Mr. Trump and his organization had worked with a wide array of dubious Russians in arrangements that often raised questions about money laundering. Likewise, those deals don’t seem to interest Congress.

We explained how, from our past journalistic work in Europe, we were deeply familiar with the political operative Paul Manafort’s coziness with Moscow and his financial ties to Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.

Finally, we debunked the biggest canard being pushed by the president’s men — the notion that we somehow knew of the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower between some Russians and the Trump brain trust. We first learned of that meeting from news reports last year — and the committees know it. They also know that these Russians were unaware of the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s work for us and were not sources for his reports.

Yes, we hired Mr. Steele, a highly respected Russia expert. But we did so without informing him whom we were working for and gave him no specific marching orders beyond this basic question: Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?

What came back shocked us. Mr. Steele’s sources in Russia (who were not paid) reported on an extensive — and now confirmed — effort by the Kremlin to help elect Mr. Trump president. Mr. Steele saw this as a crime in progress and decided he needed to report it to the F.B.I.

We did not discuss that decision with our clients, or anyone else. Instead, we deferred to Mr. Steele, a trusted friend and intelligence professional with a long history of working with law enforcement. We did not speak to the F.B.I. and haven’t since.

After the election, Mr. Steele decided to share his intelligence with Senator John McCain via an emissary. We helped him do that. The goal was to alert the United States national security community to an attack on our country by a hostile foreign power. We did not, however, share the dossier with BuzzFeed, which to our dismay published it last January.

We’re extremely proud of our work to highlight Mr. Trump’s Russia ties. To have done so is our right under the First Amendment.

It is time to stop chasing rabbits. The public still has much to learn about a man with the most troubling business past of any United States president. Congress should release transcripts of our firm’s testimony, so that the American people can learn the truth about our work and most important, what happened to our democracy.
blatham
 
  4  
Wed 3 Jan, 2018 04:57 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
good riddance Orrin Hatch
That's odd. I had exactly the same response. Excelsior, say I.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Wed 3 Jan, 2018 05:17 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
"None are so blind as those who will not see"

According to a report in the Texas Trumpet, these, tragically, are the last words spoken by Finn dAbuzz of Dallas before he tripped over his service dog and fell into the path of an oncoming electric vehicle.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Wed 3 Jan, 2018 05:24 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
But I live in the real world, and understand all too well that politics ain’t beanbag.
Indeed! But that's actually a bastardization or mis-translation of the original quote from Joe Stalin
Quote:
politika ne dlya kisok
blatham
 
  5  
Wed 3 Jan, 2018 05:29 am
@hightor,
Good find, hightor.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
blatham
 
  6  
Wed 3 Jan, 2018 05:43 am
Michelle Bachmann is seeking guidance from God. Should she run for the seat vacated by Al Franken?
Quote:
“I didn’t shed a tear when I left the [presidential] contest because I fulfilled the calling God gave me, so the question is, am I being called to do this now? I don’t know.”
RWW

For the love of God, God, tell her to run!
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.44 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 09:35:14