Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[Ghoat]

He invoked a Clinton conspiracy as red meat to right wingers. It's simply not OK.

At the end of the day, whatever his motivations or the degree of accuracy/inaccuracy, I can't argue with that. It's not OK.

 

[SteveSC]

You understand fine. We've reached that conclusion where the two opposing views come together a little. It's almost beautiful.

Honestly I think the issue is our debating-style (all of us here in the last few pages) is offputting to each other somehow, rather than being gently-convincing. Regardless of how strong & correct mine or your argument is, if it's done in a style which the other finds a bit revolting then it's not gonna have the desired effect - this desired effect is surely to bring two opposing views closer together.

Maybe it's a talent, patience or consideration thing but many of us probably lack it. I'd say @LinekersLegs & @Bruce Wayne & @peteblue have it, as examples of how optimal the tone can be, even if one remains disagreed with what they're saying.

So your idea is to insult everyone now except the three you have mentioned... Great approach. There's that self appointed moderator again.

They are good posters. They are clear precise and can have debate. You babble and pretend you are some uber intelligent self appointed moderator.

You talk in circles and ignore points and then get upset when someone doesn't answer some point you have made.

You resort to insults, memes and videos to make a point despite saying you hate people who do that.

You insult anyone who posts twitter points as unable to think for themselves.

You say you are impartial and see it from a logical point of view yet you only seem to challenge those from a left leaning stance and defend those right leaning people like they are being attacked.

Anyway i expect some smart arse response from you but just know i won't reply to you its time wasting. You have become like those others who resort to the demeaning, sarcastic approach.

 

[Ghoat]

What to make of this?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

I saw this and googled a bit. It's on many "right" outlets, but no left. 3 hours after it broke, there is no mention on CNN or MSNBC websites. What does that mean? Besides that it's it's probably wise to read both CNN and Fox daily to even be half informed, not much really.

Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But personally, it would have more credibility if it was dated the day of/after the hearings, not 5 days later. Interesting, yeah. Should she be investigated for perjury based on this single accusation? Maybe, but not by the FBI in the course of the current investigation. And Grassy referencing the letter to request additional materials is expanding the scope beyond the intent of the supplemental investigation.
Finish the *$^% investigation, have a *&#@ vote!
Then open a perjury investigation into one or both of them if there is sufficient legal standing to do so.

 

[ilikecheese]

What to make of this?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

I saw this and googled a bit. It's on many "right" outlets, but no left. 3 hours after it broke, there is no mention on CNN or MSNBC websites. What does that mean? Besides that it's it's probably wise to read both CNN and Fox daily to even be half informed, not much really.

Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But personally, it would have more credibility if it was dated the day of/after the hearings, not 5 days later. Interesting, yeah. Should she be investigated for perjury based on this single accusation? Maybe, but not by the FBI in the course of the current investigation. And Grassy referencing the letter to request additional materials is expanding the scope beyond the intent of the supplemental investigation.
Finish the *$^% investigation, have a *&#@ vote!
Then open a perjury investigation into one or both of them if there is sufficient legal standing to do so.

Fox is hardly a reliable source. Until a reputable news outlet reports on it I will make nothing of it.

 

[Ghoat]

Fox is hardly a reliable source. Until a reputable news outlet reports on it I will make nothing of it.

Fair enough. What outlet(s) are credible? Wall Street Journal, CNN etc?

 

[ilikecheese]

Fair enough. What outlet(s) are credible? Wall Street Journal, CNN etc?

Televised I would put almost every outlet to be more credible. Fox is so willing to race bait via Tucker, and fly conspiracies for fun on their primetime programs, as well as on their radio network that folks like Rush Limbaugh is a star. Right wing radio is propaganda and had been a thing for decades. The WSJ is about as neutral as it comes written. The NYT and WAPO are demonized as left wing media, but they far more reputable because they actually source and fact check as best as they can.

Ultimately, a long game well played. Brainwashing America for decades. I implore you to listen to conservative radio from an objective viewpoint. Actually listening and fact checking as much as you can in the moment.

 

[dholliday]

So your idea is to insult everyone now except the three you have mentioned... Great approach. There's that self appointed moderator again.

They are good posters. They are clear precise and can have debate. You babble and pretend you are some uber intelligent self appointed moderator.

You talk in circles and ignore points and then get upset when someone doesn't answer some point you have made.

You resort to insults, memes and videos to make a point despite saying you hate people who do that.

You insult anyone who posts twitter points as unable to think for themselves.

You say you are impartial and see it from a logical point of view yet you only seem to challenge those from a left leaning stance and defend those right leaning people like they are being attacked.

Anyway i expect some smart arse response from you but just know i won't reply to you its time wasting. You have become like those others who resort to the demeaning, sarcastic approach.

r u ok hun?

 

[abelard]

The WSJ is about as neutral as it comes written.

With the exception of its strictly-for-comic-relief opinion section, which functions like the funnies pages of yesteryear.

In terms of raw information, the financial press tends to maintain the highest standards, simply because in order to deliver their product (paying subcribers who view ads, rather than the content itself), they really do need to provide consistently accurate information. And because people still pay for it, and capital requires it, they are almost the only service left standing that can still afford to perform proper journalism.

Of course, given that the financial press is read and written by a small group of people who've emerged from the same socialisation process, if not social background, a degree of bias (which can be quite instructive) is inevitable, as with any other person or institution.

Still, opinion sections aside, the big three (WSJ, FT, Bloomberg) are of much better quality than middlebrow publications of the sort which, say, take Steven Pinker seriously, and which are read more by people who serve wealth rather than own it.

For example, while The Economist et al pounce on minor nit-picky statistical uncertainties to triumphantly dismiss Piketty, there is no real doubt among professional investors that he is correct - not because they endorse his prescriptions, but because they need to understand whether wages will remain stagnant despite GDP growth. The general economic betterment of humanity of course representing a serious threat to capital, in the form of reduced profit growth and the spectre of meaningful interest rates.

 

[peteblue]

Is there a particular thing the judge said/did that influenced you Pete?

Iirc you didn’t see Dr Ford’s testimony (but some of Kavanaugh’) so unlike many of us I don’t think you were comparing/contrasting one account up against another and I’m guessing that, despite being conservative, you aren’t particularly invested one way or another if he gets confirmed. So just interested if you are coming to that conclusion about whether he was credible based on his testimoney alone what struck you as off/an evasion/lie.

I watched his testimony and was immediately struck by his evasiveness and could not understand why. He is a very intelligent man and used to stringing questions to elicit a picture, he always knew where the questioning was going and also knew he had panel members who were totally on his side and would divert the questions if needed. So he actually had an opportunity to just win over one or two of his detractors by being totally honest, but, for me, I would say he only did it in bits. It was a harsh environment in that room, for most people, but not for a judge. My first reactions were that I would not have appointed him, too slimy a character for that role, and secondly that his obfuscation and evasiveness was probably an indication of his guilt, as innocence always allows for unambiguous honesty........

 

[LinekersLegs]

I watched his testimony and was immediately struck by his evasiveness and could not understand why. He is a very intelligent man and used to stringing questions to elicit a picture, he always knew where the questioning was going and also knew he had panel members who were totally on his side and would divert the questions if needed. So he actually had an opportunity to just win over one or two of his detractors by being totally honest, but, for me, I would say he only did it in bits. It was a harsh environment in that room, for most people, but not for a judge. My first reactions were that I would not have appointed him, too slimy a character for that role, and secondly that his obfuscation and evasiveness was probably an indication of his guilt, as innocence always allows for unambiguous honesty........

Thanks for the analysis, I thought he had been very evasive in prior testimony so wasn’t sure if that pre-existing bias was playing a part in my reactions.

I still can’t get over the fact that in his prepared statement (ie words he had chance to think about and review) he said this about the “Renate Alumnus” phrase

That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media has determined the term was related to sex. It was not related to sex. She and I never had any sexual interaction at all. So sorry to her for that yearbook reference.

In an ostensible apology to Renate he insults her intelligence that she will believe it was all meant as a clumsy form of compliment! Poor woman was one of the signaturies to the “support Kavanaugh” letter before she found out about the yearbook entries.

Not to mention this

 

[Ghoat]

Televised I would put almost every outlet to be more credible. Fox is so willing to race bait via Tucker, and fly conspiracies for fun on their primetime programs, as well as on their radio network that folks like Rush Limbaugh is a star. Right wing radio is propaganda and had been a thing for decades. The WSJ is about as neutral as it comes written. The NYT and WAPO are demonized as left wing media, but they far more reputable because they actually source and fact check as best as they can.

Ultimately, a long game well played. Brainwashing America for decades. I implore you to listen to conservative radio from an objective viewpoint. Actually listening and fact checking as much as you can in the moment.

I started listening to Rush and other hosts around 92 or so, when I had my first job where I had my own desk, a radio etc. Listened more days than not with varying degrees of attention, ditto when I began traveling (car) for work. One day during the Lewinsky/impeachment stuff, '98 or so I guess, I just got tired of it, and turned it off. Haven't turned it back on since. The right wing does own talk radio, and has since Limbaugh became a thing. Clinton's presidential bid made Limbaugh, and the entire cottage industry. I will politely decline your suggestion to listen objectively, it's too much work to even listen at all. I can tell you, while I tend to lean right-of center on many things, as soon as someone (like my brother-in-law) says "Did you hear what Rush said today?" I answer no, and know my short-term memory is about to get a rest.

Somewhere during the Bush and Obama admins Fox became everything I disliked about CNN and MSNBC. It ceased much, if any, pretense of objective news reporting. I will respectfully disagree that Fox isn't a credible news source, it's as credible as CNN/MSNBC. There are rare instances where any have to retract a story as being patently false. But they each take the facts of a news story, and then report it from their own biased lens, and usually don't differentiate between their subjective slant and objective facts. You still have to try to be objective, and understand the source may or may not be trying to create a narrative, but they certainly have a view point shared by their employer. It's easy to be obvious to slant if it generally fits what you think, or dismiss a valid point if it comes from a source you generally disagree with. Well, that's my personal experience anyway - despite being aware of my own biases and trying to be objective, I can get in my own way...

 

[mezzrow]

At the end of the day, whatever his motivations or the degree of accuracy/inaccuracy, I can't argue with that. It's not OK.

What if we find out in twenty years or so that he was right? I won't be around, or if I am I'll be looking for my drool cup, but please remember what you believed now in light of future evidence. It's how I got to where I am today. I worked for McGovern and voted for Dems until not all that long ago. I used to have two Union cards in my pocket. All politicians, left or right, depend on the public forgetting the history and buying the narrative to substitute for the real history.

The gaslighting is nonstop. As personally repellent as Trump is, I find myself forced to defend his supporters. Thanks for keeping our critics engaged. Good work.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

I started listening to Rush and other hosts around 92 or so, when I had my first job where I had my own desk, a radio etc. Listened more days than not with varying degrees of attention, ditto when I began traveling (car) for work. One day during the Lewinsky/impeachment stuff, '98 or so I guess, I just got tired of it, and turned it off. Haven't turned it back on since. The right wing does own talk radio, and has since Limbaugh became a thing. Clinton's presidential bid made Limbaugh, and the entire cottage industry. I will politely decline your suggestion to listen objectively, it's too much work to even listen at all. I can tell you, while I tend to lean right-of center on many things, as soon as someone (like my brother-in-law) says "Did you hear what Rush said today?" I answer no, and know my short-term memory is about to get a rest.

Somewhere during the Bush and Obama admins Fox became everything I disliked about CNN and MSNBC. It ceased much, if any, pretense of objective news reporting. I will respectfully disagree that Fox isn't a credible news source, it's as credible as CNN/MSNBC. There are rare instances where any have to retract a story as being patently false. But they each take the facts of a news story, and then report it from their own biased lens, and usually don't differentiate between their subjective slant and objective facts. You still have to try to be objective, and understand the source may or may not be trying to create a narrative, but they certainly have a view point shared by their employer. It's easy to be obvious to slant if it generally fits what you think, or dismiss a valid point if it comes from a source you generally disagree with. Well, that's my personal experience anyway - despite being aware of my own biases and trying to be objective, I can get in my own way...

Fox News is barely news. And much of it is opinion piece drivel.

MSNBC is a little too left-leaning, snowflaky for my taste. But it's still more news than Fox News.

CNN is kind of like the Top 40 of news outlets. It's centrist/left for the masses. But still news.

To compare Fox News, which is not news, to these other flawed news sources is dangerous

 

[ilikecheese]

What if we find out in twenty years or so that he was right? I won't be around, or if I am I'll be looking for my drool cup, but please remember what you believed now in light of future evidence. It's how I got to where I am today. I worked for McGovern and voted for Dems until not all that long ago. I used to have two Union cards in my pocket. All politicians, left or right, depend on the public forgetting the history and buying the narrative to substitute for the real history.

The gaslighting is nonstop. As personally repellent as Trump is, I find myself forced to defend his supporters. Thanks for keeping our critics engaged. Good work.

So are you saying it is OK for a SCOTUS nominee to exhibit extreme partisan behavior during a confirmation hearing?

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

What if we find out in twenty years or so that he was right? I won't be around, or if I am I'll be looking for my drool cup, but please remember what you believed now in light of future evidence. It's how I got to where I am today. I worked for McGovern and voted for Dems until not all that long ago. I used to have two Union cards in my pocket. All politicians, left or right, depend on the public forgetting the history and buying the narrative to substitute for the real history.

The gaslighting is nonstop. As personally repellent as Trump is, I find myself forced to defend his supporters. Thanks for keeping our critics engaged. Good work.

Most of us cannot get beyond this clause. He's like an Emperor that has no clothes type figure. I feel like I'm in a dreamworld.

He's a repellent shambles of a human being. That should be the first criterion you need to pass to be POTUS