110
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2018 07:59 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
And Obama said he visited more than 50 states during his campaign.

What's your point?

If it's that this signifies Trump is an idiot that surely you will agree Obama is one too.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2018 08:19 pm
@blatham,
Carrier announced further layoffs today as well.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2018 08:33 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I think Trump's announcement that he has sold Norway imaginary fighter jets that exist only in a video game might put him clearly in the lead again.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2018 10:14 pm
@oralloy,
Yep, h fluffed it and claimed he'd sold them imaginary plane, kindaa like Obama misstating the number of states. Not a stellar performance from Trump, which was the whole point.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2018 10:24 pm
@oralloy,
Bannon was doine in by his own mouth, trashing, probably truly, Trump Jr., and NO ONE trashes the Trump family and gets away with it if Donald has his way. It's the unforgivable sin in his eyes, no matter how true the rashing may be. Bannon's own hubris did him in. He got too big for his britches, and the Don cut him down.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2018 10:28 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Many politicians of all stripes seem to think the world will come to an end if they admit they've been wrong and that's probably due to the no-win situation they are placed in by the press: If they refuse to admit they were wrong, they get hammered and if they admit they were wrong...they get hammered. Reporters (whether Dutch or American) are being entirely disingenuous when they suggest that Hoekstra or politicians like him need only admit they were wrong and they will move on. A few may, but most won't until hammering the person about being wrong no longer sells newspapers, and most of them will be all too willing to bring up the error in the future if it suits them:


From this, it is difficult to imagine how you might think the press ought to behave when politicians lie or filibuster or say something really stupid and ill-informed.

Not quite a very astute observation considering that further in my post I indicated that I could not imagine how the press could possibly do more than they already do to put a stop to the filibustering of evasive politicians. I explained why in fair detail but, again, I recognize that the length of my comments often challenges A2K members to remain awake.

BTW - What is it you think they should do? Reach across the table and slap the person in the face? Hurl a string of curses at their guest and storm out of the studio? Cut off the guest's mike, piss off a portion of their audience and ensure that the person never comes on their show again? Following the Dutch Approach, as evidenced in this clip, sure as hell won't put an end to filibustering and evasion. Do you really think that from this day until he leaves his post, every press conference Hoekstra gives will be consumed entirely by Dutch reporters asking him the same question, until he finally gives them the answer they want?

This brings us back to a prior assertion I've made. You and many of your friends seem to have the ludicrous notion that only Republican politicians are guilty of transgressions and are evasive and tell lies. I've no idea what your reaction was to Matt Lauer's tough questioning of HRC but a great many of her supporters were prepared to cast him adrift at sea after that interview. It was total BS that they didn't mind the tough questioning of Clinton, they just wanted the same tough questioning of Trump. Overall, the MSM was and has been tougher on Trump than they ever thought to be with HRC or Obama. This doesn't mean they shouldn't call him out on BS and falsehoods, but it's blatantly ridiculous to suggest that the Left's ire with Lauer was due to inequity rather than a sense that he betrayed his side and savaged their favored standard bearer.

Like I wrote, I like pit-bull reporters who don't immediately roll over for bull-shitting politicians, but I have no use for the ones who only go after politicians of one side or the other while tossing softballs to the leaders of their personal tribe. Lauer, before it was revealed that he was a sexually offensive pig, had a long history of unequal treatment of guests; favoring those on the Left. Why he decided that HRC didn't deserve the soft treatment is beyond me and, frankly, I think it was one of his best interviews ever (His one with Trump was not), but he paid a price for it and it had nothing to do with inequity.


Further, it depends on the magnitude of deceit or how ill-informed it was (or how often the individual demonstrates his lack of care for accuracy) or how negatively consequential it was which determines whether the press has every reason to keep the politician under scrutiny or subject him to grilling in the future. That is what they should do.

Really? How naive of you. It doesn't matter how flagrant the evasion or even lying may be, journalists employed by major news outlets, for reasons I already laid out, are never going to devote an entire segment to following up on a single question. I'm certainly not saying that I wouldn't like them to, or that they shouldn't, but I would also like no one to ever abuse a child again and I believe no such bastard ever should, but guess what? Bastards will be abusing children long after you and I have passed from the is vale of tears.

Pretty incredible that I'm defending the US press against your outlandish expectations and demands


There's nothing the press did wrong here.

Did I assert that the Dutch press did anything wrong (other than the one woman who took an overly belligerent approach for the likely intent of advancing her career (a la Dan Rather and Jim Acosta)?

But Hoekstra, on the other hand:

Did I defend Hoekstra? Maybe I put myself to sleep when I reread my long comment and missed this.

1) made an initial claim that was erroneous because he has clearly paid no attention to the credibility of his sources and because he was too ******* lazy to do his research.

Probably, but the central issue in this story is his refusal to respond to the Dutch press; not his original statement...although I understand why you prefer to comment on the original statement.

2) he lied about what he had claimed then lied about it a second time

Not at this press conference, but I understand why you prefer to focus on his prior statements.

3) didn't have the balls or integrity to come clean, correct himself and apologize.

I'm pretty sure I wrote essentially the same thing, but with far less emphasis on the machismo aspect, and I foolishly acknowledged the slim possibility that he might have the facts to back up his claim. He's a conservative though! How could I possibly extend him the benefit of even the slightest doubt?!

So in the end, you're really not interested in discussing the story at hand. You prefer to assume that the Dutch Press are correct and hammer Hoekstra. Not surprising.

However you are the main advocate, thus far, of the need for the US press to emulate the Dutch press even though all the Dutch press did was to generate a story about Hoekstra refusing to answer their questions and, in the case of one, firing an essentially blank salvo aimed at the US press if not America in general. One of their own (you'll need to consult my post for his name) admitted that the Dutch press is not the truth-seeking bulldogs the one woman (and you and Walter) would have us believe.

Still, it serves your ongoing narrative, so why bother to stick to what was written by either the cited/quoted journalists or me?

blatham
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2018 10:41 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Do I have your permission to print that off and send it to a psychiatric journal?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2018 10:49 pm
@glitterbag,
Haiti is a **** hole and so is Bangladesh, Syria, one or more of the Eastern bloc nations, Venezuela, and a great many other nations around the globe...and it has nothing to do with the color of the citizenry's skin or, in most cases, the basic character of the average person who lives in any of them.

If they weren't ****-holes why would so many people be so keen on giving immigrants from these nations asylum and refugee status? How many people are fleeing from the UK, Japan or Chile to come to the US? How many people are fleeing to Haiti, Syria and Venezuela?

As Rich Lowry asked the CNN contributor: "Which country would you want to move to? Norway or Haiti?" Maybe you can come with a better answer than she did --- awkward silence.

If Trump said what it is claimed he said it was inartful, missed the point, and was incredibly stupid given that the room was filled with his enemies, but it was only unprecedented in terms of the latter. JFK referred to certain countries in Africa as "Boogy Nations" which is a hell of a lot more racist than "shitholes"

It's a nothing burger that Democrats and Trump-haters are trying to turn into a filet mignon because 1) The Dems are bombing in the negotiations on immigration (Despite of, or because of the efforts of the "five white guys" Nancy Pelosi so scornfully called out - Steny Hoyer being among them) and 2) They are Trump's avowed enemies and are going to take every such opportunity to strike a blow against him. Durbin's eyes must have almost popped out of his head when he heard Trump make this crack - out of gratitude, not outrage.

It seems more the case that you, not Trump, are hell-bent on casting the US as a "Third World Pariah" BTW what's so bad about Third World nations? They're not all shitholes you know.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2018 10:56 pm
@blatham,
"Barrack Obama" wrote:
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”


Apparently, it goes with the territory
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2018 11:04 pm
@ehBeth,
Yeah...bring her on

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/55/f1/a2/55f1a2491c1b115cdf3c8bd4a00f0848.jpg
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2018 11:06 pm
@blatham,
Be my guest
0 Replies
 
 

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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/26/2018 at 07:33:17