Author Topic: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting  (Read 119049 times)

MrBoom_shack-a-lack and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15898
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4270 on: April 18, 2019, 01:18:45 PM »
First, the Mueller investigation made money, the $40 million is a conservative spin talking point to discredit it as wasteful and you've now repeated it twice. Trump was not the only person investigated.

Second, Mueller's suggestion is to use his report in matters that his investigation could not, but Congress can. Literally to be the check they're meant to be.

I took it from a statement from one of the panel of detectives on CNN.   Politifact estimates it at about $34 million, plus/minus. 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/26/mueller-investigation-cost/

Much like the Obama/Trump voters, I'm sure we'll argue about this ad infinitum.  I'll go change it to $34M right now.   



Quote
When in your divorce proceedings you tell your kids to lie and they refuse and you use that as a defense that you did nothing wrong the comparison will be more apt. Trump wasn't just being careful here.

There's a difference between "kids, lie your f******g balls off, at every turn" (which, if under oath, is a felony in and of itself) and "look, you're not obligated to say anything you don't want to say when you're asked in the court" (the accuracy of which is dependent on the question and the context).  Until we know what was said, how it was said, and to whom it was said (I've not heard any specific details here yet) it's foolhardy to presuppose it means ANYTHING.    EDIT: And this is not to say that I think it's acceptable to obstruct, but for all the talk abuot how the report is "Carefully worded" when it hints at misbehavior, that works the other way as well; if you have to "carefully word" something, it's because you have two (or more) competing interests, not just one.  See what I mean about "agenda"?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2019, 01:28:18 PM by Stadler »

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1010
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4271 on: April 18, 2019, 01:33:09 PM »
First, the Mueller investigation made money, the $40 million is a conservative spin talking point to discredit it as wasteful and you've now repeated it twice. Trump was not the only person investigated.

Second, Mueller's suggestion is to use his report in matters that his investigation could not, but Congress can. Literally to be the check they're meant to be.

I took it from a statement from one of the panel of detectives on CNN.   Politifact estimates it at about $34 million, plus/minus. 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/26/mueller-investigation-cost/

Much like the Obama/Trump voters, I'm sure we'll argue about this ad infinitum.  I'll go change it to $34M right now.   



Quote
When in your divorce proceedings you tell your kids to lie and they refuse and you use that as a defense that you did nothing wrong the comparison will be more apt. Trump wasn't just being careful here.

There's a difference between "kids, lie your f******g balls off, at every turn" (which, if under oath, is a felony in and of itself) and "look, you're not obligated to say anything you don't want to say when you're asked in the court" (the accuracy of which is dependent on the question and the context).  Until we know what was said, how it was said, and to whom it was said (I've not heard any specific details here yet) it's foolhardy to presuppose it means ANYTHING.   

That you still think there's an argument to Trump / Obama voters means you are willfully again misstating my point. When we have figures from sources, use the correct figures, otherwise sticking by one's own figures is just being obstinate in an effort to not concede an inch. And you're trying to paint me as being unreasonable for pointing that out, mere minutes after (incorrectly) accusing me about not caring about facts. (Why we needed to bring that up in the first place...)

Either way, I as actually getting at that Manafort's assets being seized caused this to be a net gain for the tax payer. The "cost" is something Trump and team like to throw around to try to portray it as a waste of the evil Democrats and the deep state. It's not true.

I take Mueller at his word that Trump tried to obstruct the probe but his aides refused. Why don't you? I'm not just making things up here to support a conclusion.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21782
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4272 on: April 18, 2019, 01:33:48 PM »
@Stadler:  I think you kind of ducked my question. We all agree that congress acts as a check on the executive. This investigation was conducted by the executive. The investigation conceded that there were avenues it was unable to explore, and suggested that congress should act on its authority. I get that you're "salty" about it, but I don't think you can concede that congress should shirk that responsibility based on your interpretation of the external ramifications.

Hell, what if Mueller knew for a fact that there was something to discover that he couldn't legally put forward. Is it better for the country to hide from it?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15898
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4273 on: April 18, 2019, 01:52:55 PM »
First, the Mueller investigation made money, the $40 million is a conservative spin talking point to discredit it as wasteful and you've now repeated it twice. Trump was not the only person investigated.

Second, Mueller's suggestion is to use his report in matters that his investigation could not, but Congress can. Literally to be the check they're meant to be.

I took it from a statement from one of the panel of detectives on CNN.   Politifact estimates it at about $34 million, plus/minus. 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/26/mueller-investigation-cost/

Much like the Obama/Trump voters, I'm sure we'll argue about this ad infinitum.  I'll go change it to $34M right now.   



Quote
When in your divorce proceedings you tell your kids to lie and they refuse and you use that as a defense that you did nothing wrong the comparison will be more apt. Trump wasn't just being careful here.

There's a difference between "kids, lie your f******g balls off, at every turn" (which, if under oath, is a felony in and of itself) and "look, you're not obligated to say anything you don't want to say when you're asked in the court" (the accuracy of which is dependent on the question and the context).  Until we know what was said, how it was said, and to whom it was said (I've not heard any specific details here yet) it's foolhardy to presuppose it means ANYTHING.   

That you still think there's an argument to Trump / Obama voters means you are willfully again misstating my point. When we have figures from sources, use the correct figures, otherwise sticking by one's own figures is just being obstinate in an effort to not concede an inch. And you're trying to paint me as being unreasonable for pointing that out, mere minutes after (incorrectly) accusing me about not caring about facts. (Why we needed to bring that up in the first place...)

Bull shit.  We have estimates.  There haven't been any released numbers on Mueller's efforts since I think end of 2018.   It's all an approximation at this point.    It's not at all about me "conceding an inch"; I've stated too many times to count that I'll use whatever number you want, my underlying point still stands.  It's that you seem to love to ignore the forest and pick on the weakest tree, even after the tree has been removed and turned into newsprint and a deck chair. 

Quote
Either way, I as actually getting at that Manafort's assets being seized caused this to be a net gain for the tax payer. The "cost" is something Trump and team like to throw around to try to portray it as a waste of the evil Democrats and the deep state. It's not true.

I take Mueller at his word that Trump tried to obstruct the probe but his aides refused. Why don't you? I'm not just making things up here to support a conclusion.

Who said I didn't?   I haven't made any comment on the report itself, just on the analysis and observations of the report. I haven't read it in it's entirety (I have started it, though; dry, drier, dryest) and don't feel entitled to draw the conclusions that some are (some who, by their own admission, haven't read it either).   

I'm happy to take Mueller at his word. That's kind of my point; it's not me that is making that decision, though.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15898
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4274 on: April 18, 2019, 02:06:55 PM »
@Stadler:  I think you kind of ducked my question. We all agree that congress acts as a check on the executive. This investigation was conducted by the executive. The investigation conceded that there were avenues it was unable to explore, and suggested that congress should act on its authority. I get that you're "salty" about it, but I don't think you can concede that congress should shirk that responsibility based on your interpretation of the external ramifications.

Hell, what if Mueller knew for a fact that there was something to discover that he couldn't legally put forward. Is it better for the country to hide from it?

Of course not.  I'm not interested in protecting any one person or any group.  If the law was broken, we need to take reasonable efforts to pursue that.   But as of right now, we're not talking about that.   We keep veering from the "political" to the "legal" and not taking any care to differentiate where we are on the spectrum.  Mueller was clear, legally, in the report.  Even (some of) the critics concede that.   But because there are political concerns, to have Congress now take up the mantle ought to be done with exceeding care. 

Even Cuomo is starting to get that; his narrative has changed over the course of the day (and I can't say that I disagree with him, though it's exceedingly self-serving).  Cuomo:  "Legally, Trump didn't conspire with the Russians.  PERIOD.  But... [and this is the important shift] the narrative that this was a hoax or a witch hunt has been considerably and decisively debunked.  There WERE grounds to be asking these questions."    Did you catch that?   Nothing about Trump's behavior or criminality, but "the press is vindicated".    I'll take that, because at least it's honest, but it's very different.  It's taking the facts and using it to push an agenda.   If and when Congress gets to that point, do you trust each and every member of that body to not make hay now that the sun is out?   

If Trump DID conspire, he ought to be punished; my point, and the essence of my ire, is that the purgatory is perhaps WORSE than the Heaven (depending where you sit, an indictment or an exoneration) and the Hell (vice versa).   Because now we can continue the partisan bickering, the agenda-driven spinning of the key phrases that individually indicate "2" and "2" but don't at all add up to "4".   

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21782
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4275 on: April 18, 2019, 02:13:32 PM »
@Stadler:  I think you kind of ducked my question. We all agree that congress acts as a check on the executive. This investigation was conducted by the executive. The investigation conceded that there were avenues it was unable to explore, and suggested that congress should act on its authority. I get that you're "salty" about it, but I don't think you can concede that congress should shirk that responsibility based on your interpretation of the external ramifications.

Hell, what if Mueller knew for a fact that there was something to discover that he couldn't legally put forward. Is it better for the country to hide from it?

Of course not.  I'm not interested in protecting any one person or any group.  If the law was broken, we need to take reasonable efforts to pursue that.   But as of right now, we're not talking about that.   We keep veering from the "political" to the "legal" and not taking any care to differentiate where we are on the spectrum.  Mueller was clear, legally, in the report.  Even (some of) the critics concede that.   But because there are political concerns, to have Congress now take up the mantle ought to be done with exceeding care. 

Even Cuomo is starting to get that; his narrative has changed over the course of the day (and I can't say that I disagree with him, though it's exceedingly self-serving).  Cuomo:  "Legally, Trump didn't conspire with the Russians.  PERIOD.  But... [and this is the important shift] the narrative that this was a hoax or a witch hunt has been considerably and decisively debunked.  There WERE grounds to be asking these questions."    Did you catch that?   Nothing about Trump's behavior or criminality, but "the press is vindicated".    I'll take that, because at least it's honest, but it's very different.  It's taking the facts and using it to push an agenda.   If and when Congress gets to that point, do you trust each and every member of that body to not make hay now that the sun is out?   

If Trump DID conspire, he ought to be punished; my point, and the essence of my ire, is that the purgatory is perhaps WORSE than the Heaven (depending where you sit, an indictment or an exoneration) and the Hell (vice versa).   Because now we can continue the partisan bickering, the agenda-driven spinning of the key phrases that individually indicate "2" and "2" but don't at all add up to "4".
The onus is on congress to investigate. Let's let them investigate. When they inevitably start to politicize what they find, we treat that politicization the same way we do Donny's, MSNBC's, FOX's, and the "liberal dems'." We recognize the bullshit and evaluate what was actually concluded. What we don't do is write off the investigation because "eh, they're just gonna politicize it."
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1010
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4276 on: April 18, 2019, 02:20:49 PM »
First, the Mueller investigation made money, the $40 million is a conservative spin talking point to discredit it as wasteful and you've now repeated it twice. Trump was not the only person investigated.

Second, Mueller's suggestion is to use his report in matters that his investigation could not, but Congress can. Literally to be the check they're meant to be.

I took it from a statement from one of the panel of detectives on CNN.   Politifact estimates it at about $34 million, plus/minus. 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/26/mueller-investigation-cost/

Much like the Obama/Trump voters, I'm sure we'll argue about this ad infinitum.  I'll go change it to $34M right now.   



Quote
When in your divorce proceedings you tell your kids to lie and they refuse and you use that as a defense that you did nothing wrong the comparison will be more apt. Trump wasn't just being careful here.

There's a difference between "kids, lie your f******g balls off, at every turn" (which, if under oath, is a felony in and of itself) and "look, you're not obligated to say anything you don't want to say when you're asked in the court" (the accuracy of which is dependent on the question and the context).  Until we know what was said, how it was said, and to whom it was said (I've not heard any specific details here yet) it's foolhardy to presuppose it means ANYTHING.   

That you still think there's an argument to Trump / Obama voters means you are willfully again misstating my point. When we have figures from sources, use the correct figures, otherwise sticking by one's own figures is just being obstinate in an effort to not concede an inch. And you're trying to paint me as being unreasonable for pointing that out, mere minutes after (incorrectly) accusing me about not caring about facts. (Why we needed to bring that up in the first place...)

Bull shit.  We have estimates.  There haven't been any released numbers on Mueller's efforts since I think end of 2018.   It's all an approximation at this point.    It's not at all about me "conceding an inch"; I've stated too many times to count that I'll use whatever number you want, my underlying point still stands.  It's that you seem to love to ignore the forest and pick on the weakest tree, even after the tree has been removed and turned into newsprint and a deck chair. 

Quote
Either way, I as actually getting at that Manafort's assets being seized caused this to be a net gain for the tax payer. The "cost" is something Trump and team like to throw around to try to portray it as a waste of the evil Democrats and the deep state. It's not true.

I take Mueller at his word that Trump tried to obstruct the probe but his aides refused. Why don't you? I'm not just making things up here to support a conclusion.

Who said I didn't?   I haven't made any comment on the report itself, just on the analysis and observations of the report. I haven't read it in it's entirety (I have started it, though; dry, drier, dryest) and don't feel entitled to draw the conclusions that some are (some who, by their own admission, haven't read it either).   

I'm happy to take Mueller at his word. That's kind of my point; it's not me that is making that decision, though.

Your snark about dating girls was a direct reply to a quote from the report itself.


(As for the 'bullshit': not even close to true, and irrelevant until you made a non sequitur to a different topic in an effort to make me look unreasonable. And doubling down on it, for what reason?)

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15898
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4277 on: April 18, 2019, 02:20:53 PM »
@Stadler:  I think you kind of ducked my question. We all agree that congress acts as a check on the executive. This investigation was conducted by the executive. The investigation conceded that there were avenues it was unable to explore, and suggested that congress should act on its authority. I get that you're "salty" about it, but I don't think you can concede that congress should shirk that responsibility based on your interpretation of the external ramifications.

Hell, what if Mueller knew for a fact that there was something to discover that he couldn't legally put forward. Is it better for the country to hide from it?

Of course not.  I'm not interested in protecting any one person or any group.  If the law was broken, we need to take reasonable efforts to pursue that.   But as of right now, we're not talking about that.   We keep veering from the "political" to the "legal" and not taking any care to differentiate where we are on the spectrum.  Mueller was clear, legally, in the report.  Even (some of) the critics concede that.   But because there are political concerns, to have Congress now take up the mantle ought to be done with exceeding care. 

Even Cuomo is starting to get that; his narrative has changed over the course of the day (and I can't say that I disagree with him, though it's exceedingly self-serving).  Cuomo:  "Legally, Trump didn't conspire with the Russians.  PERIOD.  But... [and this is the important shift] the narrative that this was a hoax or a witch hunt has been considerably and decisively debunked.  There WERE grounds to be asking these questions."    Did you catch that?   Nothing about Trump's behavior or criminality, but "the press is vindicated".    I'll take that, because at least it's honest, but it's very different.  It's taking the facts and using it to push an agenda.   If and when Congress gets to that point, do you trust each and every member of that body to not make hay now that the sun is out?   

If Trump DID conspire, he ought to be punished; my point, and the essence of my ire, is that the purgatory is perhaps WORSE than the Heaven (depending where you sit, an indictment or an exoneration) and the Hell (vice versa).   Because now we can continue the partisan bickering, the agenda-driven spinning of the key phrases that individually indicate "2" and "2" but don't at all add up to "4".
The onus is on congress to investigate. Let's let them investigate. When they inevitably start to politicize what they find, we treat that politicization the same way we do Donny's, MSNBC's, FOX's, and the "liberal dems'." We recognize the bullshit and evaluate what was actually concluded. What we don't do is write off the investigation because "eh, they're just gonna politicize it."

I don't disagree in theory, but in practice I think we're already there.  Adam Schiff is already saying that the report perhaps didn't go far enough in only limiting itself to "criminality".  What else is there, but "politicization"? Especially since he's already concluded that the report is, in his words, are "damning" and "unpatriotic".    (Though to his credit, he did say that they wouldn't recreate the wheel in their efforts). 

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1010
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4278 on: April 18, 2019, 02:58:59 PM »
I'm not sure what all Schiff said directly, but I'm seeing a statement that the acts of obstruction are "alarming" and that Mueller has left it up to Congress. I can't say I disagree with that sentiment. That's my understanding of how the process is supposed to work.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21782
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4279 on: April 18, 2019, 03:33:06 PM »
@Stadler:  I think you kind of ducked my question. We all agree that congress acts as a check on the executive. This investigation was conducted by the executive. The investigation conceded that there were avenues it was unable to explore, and suggested that congress should act on its authority. I get that you're "salty" about it, but I don't think you can concede that congress should shirk that responsibility based on your interpretation of the external ramifications.

Hell, what if Mueller knew for a fact that there was something to discover that he couldn't legally put forward. Is it better for the country to hide from it?

Of course not.  I'm not interested in protecting any one person or any group.  If the law was broken, we need to take reasonable efforts to pursue that.   But as of right now, we're not talking about that.   We keep veering from the "political" to the "legal" and not taking any care to differentiate where we are on the spectrum.  Mueller was clear, legally, in the report.  Even (some of) the critics concede that.   But because there are political concerns, to have Congress now take up the mantle ought to be done with exceeding care. 

Even Cuomo is starting to get that; his narrative has changed over the course of the day (and I can't say that I disagree with him, though it's exceedingly self-serving).  Cuomo:  "Legally, Trump didn't conspire with the Russians.  PERIOD.  But... [and this is the important shift] the narrative that this was a hoax or a witch hunt has been considerably and decisively debunked.  There WERE grounds to be asking these questions."    Did you catch that?   Nothing about Trump's behavior or criminality, but "the press is vindicated".    I'll take that, because at least it's honest, but it's very different.  It's taking the facts and using it to push an agenda.   If and when Congress gets to that point, do you trust each and every member of that body to not make hay now that the sun is out?   

If Trump DID conspire, he ought to be punished; my point, and the essence of my ire, is that the purgatory is perhaps WORSE than the Heaven (depending where you sit, an indictment or an exoneration) and the Hell (vice versa).   Because now we can continue the partisan bickering, the agenda-driven spinning of the key phrases that individually indicate "2" and "2" but don't at all add up to "4".
The onus is on congress to investigate. Let's let them investigate. When they inevitably start to politicize what they find, we treat that politicization the same way we do Donny's, MSNBC's, FOX's, and the "liberal dems'." We recognize the bullshit and evaluate what was actually concluded. What we don't do is write off the investigation because "eh, they're just gonna politicize it."

I don't disagree in theory, but in practice I think we're already there.  Adam Schiff is already saying that the report perhaps didn't go far enough in only limiting itself to "criminality".  What else is there, but "politicization"? Especially since he's already concluded that the report is, in his words, are "damning" and "unpatriotic".    (Though to his credit, he did say that they wouldn't recreate the wheel in their efforts).
Then he's a dumbass, but what else is new. That has no bearing on congress's obligation to follow up here. Moreover, you're already getting a headstart on Donny's inevitable attack on the process. "It's over, and now they're just trying to politicize it. Beating a Dead Horse!" Not only is that bullshit, but it's the same politicization you're "salty" about when applied to congress. 

And it occurs to me that you're making the same, em, problematic argument that prevailed in Bush v Gore. "Eh, they probably won't be able to do it right, so let's just shut down the process." In both cases the first part might be correct, but the process has to play out.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15898
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4280 on: April 19, 2019, 07:01:13 AM »
Well, I'm definitely not saying "Bush v. Gore".  The process can't be shut down just because we think it might be fucked up.   I'm not going anywhere near that far.

But I am saying that if we do get tangible, provable evidence that it's fucked up we should then consider shutting it down, or at least cutting out the "fucked up" part, and I'm saying that I'm already seeing that tangible, provable evidence of that.   

I'm reading the report.  Word for word, every page.   And while I'm not that far in, I'm already starting to have "wow, that's not how Jake Tapper reported it" and "huh, that's not what Adam Schiff was saying" moments.   Well, literally the former, facetiously the latter.   But you get my point; you can't scream FACTS! FACTS! FACTS! then play the partisan card IF you are truly invested in justice, not politics. 

Online Kattelox

  • Heart of an Eagle
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6686
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4281 on: April 19, 2019, 07:33:28 AM »
Why are you so focused on news anchors, specifically CNN news anchors, Stadler?
RYM || Last.FM
"Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick, a shadow on the wall." - Varys, Game of Thrones

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3439
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4282 on: April 19, 2019, 10:00:51 AM »
Why are you so focused on news anchors, specifically CNN news anchors, Stadler?
 




And while I'm not that far in, I'm already starting to have "wow, that's not how Jake Tapper reported it" and "huh, that's not what Adam Schiff was saying" moments.

Even Cuomo is starting to get that; his narrative has changed over the course of the day (and I can't say that I disagree with him, though it's exceedingly self-serving).  Cuomo:  "Legally, Trump didn't conspire with the Russians.  PERIOD.  But... [and this is the important shift] the narrative that this was a hoax or a witch hunt has been considerably and decisively debunked.  There WERE grounds to be asking these questions." 

Cuomo just said it point blank:  "Democrats believe that momentum has shifted, and now they have at least a portion of the facts that justify more inquiry into an abuse of power by the President of the United States."   Uh, what?  Chris Cuomo, JOURNALIST, now speaks for the Democratic coalition as to what they believe and what should be next?   He also admitted, not 30 minutes ago, to not having read the entire report (full disclosure, neither have I, yet) but he's qualified to be rendering strategic observations about what the political ramifications ought to be?   
Cuomo just mocked Trump for referring to "collusion", because it's not a thing, even though 90% of Trump's references to "collusion" were mocking and intended to show that it wasn't a thing, even though the press kept referring to it. 

Chris Cuomo and Jim Acosta are now flabbergasted - playing the "if you did nothing wrong, why did you lie so much?" card - and yet it's so ignorant of their own analysis in other contexts, and their role in this mess.   HE IS A PARANOID.  HE DOESN'T TRUST YOU.   

The same CNN round table is now picking apart the Mueller investigation, and pointing out points that they felt "should have been pursued further".   
Over two years and $34 million dollars, and my money is on Congress replicating this movie shot-for-shot, because they didn't get the answer they wanted.
Did I say it was Jake Tapper, Wolf Blitzer, and John King on TV?   I must've been still sleeping; it's actually Thomas Magnum, Hercule Poirot, and Phillip Marlowe.   At least Jessica Fletcher and Lisbeth Salander - I'm sorry, I mean Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - will get it right.

(As I type this, the crawl on CNN says "Trump after hearing of Mueller apptment:  "I'm f*****d".    Yes, CNN put on their screen "f*****d".)

Holy crap.   I'm watching Jake Tapper, David Axelrod (who I like), Wolf Blitzer (who I like), John King (who I like) and a couple others debate/discuss the Mueller report in the aftermath of Barr's statement this morning.
Tapper is going to need WEEKS of physical therapy for all the gymnastics he's involved in.  This isn't journalism, folks.  There's no relating of facts, here.  It's "I HAVE MY CONCLUSION, now how do I get this new information to dove-tail with it?"    I've heard three times now in 45 minutes the tired trope "just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it right!", twice by Tapper.  He might as well make a t-shirt.   
John King is really the only voice of reason here, and not least of which because he's saying exactly what I've been saying for years now:  "The problem isn't Trump, it's what all this means the next time around."

https://twitter.com/ananavarro/status/1117971744923504640
From a CNN correspondent of all things (so no bias, no opinionating), and I ended up punching my dog in the face and kicking a hole in the wall of my office.  Not because of the first tweet - it is what it is, media circa 2019 - but the replies.

By the way, Buttigieg is the darling of CNN.  Katie Bolduan can barely control herself when talking about him.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2019, 10:12:42 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Online Kattelox

  • Heart of an Eagle
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6686
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4283 on: April 19, 2019, 10:20:32 AM »
 :lol

Sidenote on the profanities: when Trump called those countries 'shitholes' CNN had a whole evening in which their talking heads threw out the word 'shithole.' I heard Ana Navarro use it about 5 times in a minute. There's no reason to spend so much time obsessing over one of these major networks. We all know what their purpose is, how they manipulate viewers and carefully pick choice words. It's not really worth getting in a tizzy over what CNN, FOX, etc. do, we are all well aware of it. Using the networks as the poster child for some of these arguments doesn't work, in my opinion.
RYM || Last.FM
"Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick, a shadow on the wall." - Varys, Game of Thrones

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15898
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4284 on: April 19, 2019, 11:48:04 AM »
Why are you so focused on news anchors, specifically CNN news anchors, Stadler?

AND

:lol

Sidenote on the profanities: when Trump called those countries 'shitholes' CNN had a whole evening in which their talking heads threw out the word 'shithole.' I heard Ana Navarro use it about 5 times in a minute. There's no reason to spend so much time obsessing over one of these major networks. We all know what their purpose is, how they manipulate viewers and carefully pick choice words. It's not really worth getting in a tizzy over what CNN, FOX, etc. do, we are all well aware of it. Using the networks as the poster child for some of these arguments doesn't work, in my opinion.

Except, no.   There are pages here where we've talked about how "unique" Fox News is.  Hillary and Obama BOTH called out Fox for "influencing" the election.   Trump has been lambasted - correctly, for the most part - for his "assault" on mainstream news, primarily CNN.   Conversely, I've been accused of being a Trump apologist - someone I don't like, don't agree with, and didn't vote for, I might add - and so I've opted to immerse myself in the opposition in an effort to be fair and bipartisan.

And it's proving nigh on impossible.

The problem is, whereas Fox is a singular mouthpiece for one slice of an ideological demographic - and not even that, given the disparity between the news side of the Fox house and the op-ed side of the Fox house - CNN is far more applicable to a more mainstream idea, and they've been putting themselves forth as the poster child for "truth" and credible journalism.   And if that "mainstream idea" is NOT built on fact, but rather on the ideology of it's participants, and is also willing to color the facts to the narrative, where does that leave us?

The segment that just finished - yes, I'm referring to CNN again - had Kate Bolduan and one of the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee (Madeleine Dean) and they were seriously talking about impeachment based on the Mueller report.  And the Rep, with deep gravitas, tried to tell us that this is the duty and the obligation of the Congress to "follow the roadmap that Robert Mueller laid out for us" that leads to the truth.   She also noted that the President didn't cooperate with this report, and that the committee has no other mandate that to get to "the central thing... and that's the TRUTH" (she said that with an inflection to her voice to hammer that home).  She noted how "disrespectful" the President and his Administration has been to the truth, and yet...

If you're going to make "the truth" your cornerstone, your raison d'etre, then you best be following it, and not your ideological ideals.    It's a simple math equation, and it's deeply bothersome that few see it.  She ended with a dippy, trite anecdote about someone coming up to her on the street (yea, right) and saying "please, PLEASE find the truth! Our democracy is at stake here!"  and for me, that's not what's going to doom our democracy; the hyper-partisanship is going to kill our democracy far sooner than a President that just about everyone, including his own inner circle, regards with skepticism.   

EDIT:  As I'm sitting here, in the subsequent segment, the idea that there are "stunning" similarities between Nixon and Trump came up, and Kate Bolduan, in wondering why Republicans abandoned Nixon, but haven't seemed to have abandoned Trump (yet), noted, with a jawdropping level of both self-obliviousness and deep candor, awareness to a jawdropping degree, that "there wasn't any conservative media back then".    Wha?  So there IS "liberal" and "conservative" media?   Or just "conservative"?   So I ask the question again that I asked Dave:  if Fox is so powerful, why don't the combined might of CNN, MSNBC, and the countless network outlets outweigh that?  And if, like Dean suggested, "TRUTH" is the ultimate arbiter, why is there even a "conservative" and "liberal" news media?   Isn't it, SHOULDN'T it be, just the "truthful" (i.e. OBJECTIVE) news media?   

How can you have it both ways?   
« Last Edit: April 19, 2019, 12:04:18 PM by Stadler »

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 544
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4285 on: April 19, 2019, 12:09:33 PM »
Iíve told you before, you watch too much cable news.  Wichever network it is, itís not good. 

Online Kattelox

  • Heart of an Eagle
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6686
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4286 on: April 19, 2019, 01:50:58 PM »
Stadler, my man. Just turn off the TV. I get what you're saying, brother, I do. But you're wasting your time ranting about Kate Bolduan of all people. A mid-morning CNN anchor. (Have you seen how obnoxious she's gotten on other segments, unable to control her anger towards her guests she disagrees with?)
RYM || Last.FM
"Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick, a shadow on the wall." - Varys, Game of Thrones

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15898
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4287 on: April 20, 2019, 06:08:38 PM »
Iíve told you before, you watch too much cable news.  Wichever network it is, itís not good.

Well, you're probably right on the personal level..., but...

Stadler, my man. Just turn off the TV. I get what you're saying, brother, I do. But you're wasting your time ranting about Kate Bolduan of all people. A mid-morning CNN anchor. (Have you seen how obnoxious she's gotten on other segments, unable to control her anger towards her guests she disagrees with?)

...if it was only so easy.   It's inescapable.   Politics has become so universal, because it's become so "personal" - that is, because people's opinions have been elevated to such degree by social media - that it's everywhere.    You know how SNL used to do funny little mini-sketches for their ads?  Well, Fallon "stole" that idea, and his ads are little bits with his guests.  And so we got Pete Buttigieg doing "shtick" while I'm trying to get away from CNN (that's a joke; I rarely ever watch it at night, and it's only on during the day as a distraction and/or so I'm not completely isolated in my office) to enjoy a little "Blacklist".   

I think the hyperbole that Trump will be the "end of our democracy" is flat out partisan bullshit (as it was for Obama and/or Clinton).  But I do think there's substance to the idea that our democracy is in trouble when we forsake reason, and we forsake what is good for the collective in favor of "what feels right".  It's awesome to mock Trump when he says he trusts his "gut", but it's not so awesome when millions of Americas - Americans who do not have his resources, his Rolodex, his access to intelligence (whether he reads it or not), or his contacts (whether he listens to them or not) - do the exact same thing every single day on Twitter. 

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 544
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4288 on: April 20, 2019, 10:12:16 PM »
Iíve told you before, you watch too much cable news.  Wichever network it is, itís not good.

Well, you're probably right on the personal level..., but...

Stadler, my man. Just turn off the TV. I get what you're saying, brother, I do. But you're wasting your time ranting about Kate Bolduan of all people. A mid-morning CNN anchor. (Have you seen how obnoxious she's gotten on other segments, unable to control her anger towards her guests she disagrees with?)

...if it was only so easy.   It's inescapable.   Politics has become so universal, because it's become so "personal" - that is, because people's opinions have been elevated to such degree by social media - that it's everywhere.    You know how SNL used to do funny little mini-sketches for their ads?  Well, Fallon "stole" that idea, and his ads are little bits with his guests.  And so we got Pete Buttigieg doing "shtick" while I'm trying to get away from CNN (that's a joke; I rarely ever watch it at night, and it's only on during the day as a distraction and/or so I'm not completely isolated in my office) to enjoy a little "Blacklist".   

I think the hyperbole that Trump will be the "end of our democracy" is flat out partisan bullshit (as it was for Obama and/or Clinton).  But I do think there's substance to the idea that our democracy is in trouble when we forsake reason, and we forsake what is good for the collective in favor of "what feels right".  It's awesome to mock Trump when he says he trusts his "gut", but it's not so awesome when millions of Americas - Americans who do not have his resources, his Rolodex, his access to intelligence (whether he reads it or not), or his contacts (whether he listens to them or not) - do the exact same thing every single day on Twitter.

yeah itís not the same,  itís much worse when itís the president. 

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3439
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4289 on: April 21, 2019, 09:18:44 AM »
Funny, I have zero problem disconnecting from media and therefore disconnecting from politics.  The only time I see it is when I want to.  If you feel it is everywhere and inescapable, I recommend you disconnect from electronic devices for a while, and then start with the first stage of addiction....admit YOU have a problem and take some personal responsibility.  Stop blaming everything and everyone else.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15898
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #4290 on: Today at 06:23:56 AM »
Iíve told you before, you watch too much cable news.  Wichever network it is, itís not good.

Well, you're probably right on the personal level..., but...

Stadler, my man. Just turn off the TV. I get what you're saying, brother, I do. But you're wasting your time ranting about Kate Bolduan of all people. A mid-morning CNN anchor. (Have you seen how obnoxious she's gotten on other segments, unable to control her anger towards her guests she disagrees with?)

...if it was only so easy.   It's inescapable.   Politics has become so universal, because it's become so "personal" - that is, because people's opinions have been elevated to such degree by social media - that it's everywhere.    You know how SNL used to do funny little mini-sketches for their ads?  Well, Fallon "stole" that idea, and his ads are little bits with his guests.  And so we got Pete Buttigieg doing "shtick" while I'm trying to get away from CNN (that's a joke; I rarely ever watch it at night, and it's only on during the day as a distraction and/or so I'm not completely isolated in my office) to enjoy a little "Blacklist".   

I think the hyperbole that Trump will be the "end of our democracy" is flat out partisan bullshit (as it was for Obama and/or Clinton).  But I do think there's substance to the idea that our democracy is in trouble when we forsake reason, and we forsake what is good for the collective in favor of "what feels right".  It's awesome to mock Trump when he says he trusts his "gut", but it's not so awesome when millions of Americas - Americans who do not have his resources, his Rolodex, his access to intelligence (whether he reads it or not), or his contacts (whether he listens to them or not) - do the exact same thing every single day on Twitter.

yeah itís not the same,  itís much worse when itís the president.

I think absolutely, 100% the opposite. 

We've had, relatively speaking, decent Presidents for the last 40 years, but we've had an increasingly partisan, petty, opinion-driven populace, and look where we are.   

This is why I've been harping on the "causation" aspect to all this for the past year and a half.   THIS IS NOT TRUMP.  THIS IS US.   (Is that phrase taken?  "This Is Us"?   Can I sell that?)