Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 17:36:17 GMT -5
Maybe I'll use it in a court document.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 17, 2017 17:47:57 GMT -5
Pledified or pleadedified?
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 17, 2017 17:54:46 GMT -5
I don't have a subscription to the WaPo so can't see for myself, but I'm hearing that the same writer of the article that broke this "news" has written a second one which doesn't use the word "ban" in the body of the article. Interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 17:55:51 GMT -5
Pledified or pleadedified? Pfft. No REAL lawyer would use "pledified."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 18:14:57 GMT -5
I don't have a subscription to the WaPo so can't see for myself, but I'm hearing that the same writer of the article that broke this "news" has written a second one which doesn't use the word "ban" in the body of the article. Interesting. So... use of the word "ban" makes the entire content of the article "fake news"? And writing a second article that doesn't use the word "ban" is a smoking gun? Wouldn't it be awesome if Trump released a tweet in which he explicitly stated that he was completely wrong about Obama being born in another country or Obama wiretapping him? Wouldn't it be swell if Fox News put out an explicit story decrying the Seth Rich story they so assiduously peddled was false from beginning to end and never had any plausible support? I could go on. You're very quick to point out any perceived mistake or exaggeration on the part of the mainstream news and call "fake news." I am trying to think if I've EVER seen you condemn a falsehood coming out of Fox or the Trump administration, and god knows there have been a ton. If you did, I might not give you such a hard time about this. But as far as I can see, you have a completely different standard for the mainstream media as you do for the right-wing media or the Trump administration. Or, indeed, for Hillary Clinton. I'll give you that the mainstream media (a) has made mistakes (and always has, it being promulgated by human beings), and (b) is sometimes a bit "breathless" (to use Rob's favorite word) in its coverage of negative Trump news. But the Trump administration sure as hell gives them a lot of material, and fave right outlets like Fox are in fact far worse than the mainstream media, not only in promulgating falsehoods and misleading information, but in failing to report news (or burying anything harmful to Trump or the right). I sometimes tune into Fox when huge news is breaking, just to see what silly nonsense they're covering while, e.g., Manafort is being indicted.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 17, 2017 19:09:15 GMT -5
That's reminiscent of a few days ago when CNN was covering how many diet cokes Trump drinks per day, at the same time the terrorist had just been apprehended in New York with the malfunctioning bomb.
Also, why do you and Amadan always point out things about me unfairly attacking Obama and Clinton? I really have only ever argued against their policies (or carelessness with a server/emails). And I've said complimentary things about both of them, actually.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 17, 2017 21:37:17 GMT -5
I suppose to some degree politicians are going to politician. But man, that substitute for "science-based" and "evidence-based" -- those are not terms people should need to pussyfoot around, especially in the way that is suggested. I'm with Don -- that particular suggested substitution gave me the heebie-jeebies. Personally, I'm kind of looking forward to adding the word "proofified" to my next draft. Hmm...I'm thinking maybe I could also use "proofification" (the process of proofifying something) and "prooficity" (the quality or state of having previously been proofified).
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 18, 2017 7:59:59 GMT -5
Srategery.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 18, 2017 8:06:22 GMT -5
That's reminiscent of a few days ago when CNN was covering how many diet cokes Trump drinks per day, at the same time the terrorist had just been apprehended in New York with the malfunctioning bomb. Yeah, I don't watch FoxNews at all. I'll flip through, just to see their "big story," but I don't stop.I tend to hit CNN just to see the crawl when I do watch the "news." But I did catch some seriously extended discussions on CNN about both Trump's beverage intake and his TV consumption. One can't very well put FoxNews on an island these days; the other networks are just as vapid. Really, the Scarborough/Brzezinski show is bordering on the pajama-party inanity of Fox and Friends, from what I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 18, 2017 9:44:15 GMT -5
Also, why do you and Amadan always point out things about me unfairly attacking Obama and Clinton? I really have only ever argued against their policies (or carelessness with a server/emails). And I've said complimentary things about both of them, actually. Because your kneejerk response is always the top right-leaning link off of a Google search. And because the way you react to the behavior of politicians you like and the way you react to politicians you don't like demonstrates that your principles are completely situational.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 18, 2017 12:25:54 GMT -5
We always bring in someone else's use of Google when our arguments are weak, I guess. I still want to see an example of when I reacted to Obama or Clinton differently than Trump. As I said, my comments here are usually on policy, and of course I agree with more of that in Trump's admin than in Obama's. I pointed out plenty of times in the past how I think Obama has class and seems to be a good person, good family man, good dad, good speaker, great sense of humor, etc. I also expressed sympathy towards Clinton for unfair bias against her and for being married to a cad. That doesn't excuse her running a bad campaign with policy ideas I was against, or not being very charismatic. A few of the things I got most riled up about regarding Obama were the Iran deal (Hoo boy, lots to talk about there right now) his treatment of Israel, his weak response to Isis, and executive overreach. As Trump is the exact opposite with Israel, Iran, Isis (which has been obliterated out of Iraq in great thanks to the Trump administrations' new approach, but of course no one has mentioned it), and has reversed or tried to reverse certain of Obama's executive overreaches, why wouldn't I be pleased?
If I weren't here, many discussions on this board would be an echo chamber regarding Trump (except for Rob who is pretty damned objective). It's not a good use of my time to just join in a piling on. I will contribute when there's actually something to offer that's a different or contrary perspective. If that's all you see, then that's a problem with the sample, not with how I view the world or Trump. But that really shouldn't matter. What should matter is the argument at hand. Each one should be taken at face value. I don't care about your political leanings. I don't judge you as a person because you're more left or right than I am. I just look at your (general you) current argument and the amount of breathlessness or hysteria involved. There's so much of that these days. And if the breathlessness seems to outweigh the facts, like in the CDC "word ban", I remain skeptical and try to find out more. But if someone like me isn't displaying what seems to be a minimum amount of outrage required, then they get insulted. I really don't need or want to spend time criticizing Trump just so I placate a few members of this board. If you need more Trump criticism, just go to most any mainstream news source, especially CNN.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 13:25:11 GMT -5
The reason I call you out on it is because the relative corruption, errors, lies and/or bad behavior of Trump vs Obama or Hillary are not even CLOSE to being in proportion. (And I say that as someone who had plenty of criticisms of Obama and Hillary, particularly the latter, as you might recall.) Thus, your occasionally saying e.g., that Obama is a not bad human being but who, hoo boy, did he do teeeerrrrrbile things re Iran and Israel and domestic policy vs. your praise for our "wonderful" president (whose Twitter feed is sometimes controversial) are, to say the least, way, way, way, way out of proportion. And your silence on his constant outrages on our democracy, free press, and plain old truth and decency, disappoint me.
I will note that it is not just the blamestream liberal media routinely calling out Trump and sounding an awful lot like me these days. It's rock solid long-time staunch conservatives -- Bill Kristol, Rick Wilson, Max Boot, Evan McMullin, the Bushes, McCain, Kasich, Romney and many more. I am generally on board with them -- and with some of them, actually (Wilson, Boot, and McMullin in particular), more so than with the far left. I have sometimes gone about correcting and arguing with over-zealous Resistance warriors on Twitter. I've never felt inclined to do that with Wilson, Boot, and McMullin -- even where I don't agree with them (and actually, I generally do), they're well-informed, call it like it is, and shoot straight. I'm a yuuuuge admirer of all three.
I have long considered myself a moderate (with liberal/libertarian social views, but more conservative economic views) and used to routinely argue with my far-left friends. But I've realized over the election and since that given where the right has gone, I now fall on the left, not so much because my views have changed as because the powers-that-be on the right no longer sound remotely like the conservatives I respect. And the conservatives I respect are being shunned by Trump supporters -- even getting threats. (e.g., Wilson's teenage son actually got death threats from Trump supporters, encouraged by the loathsome Mike Cernovich, who went after the kid).
I don't even know what the hell the Republican Party is supposed to stand for these days. Fiscal responsibility? When they are pushing a tax plan that will create a $1.5 trillion deficit, merely to give a ginormous tax credit to the wealthy and corporations during a time when they are already flourishing? Family values and morals? When they back people like Trump and Roy Moore?
As far as the vapidness and untruth of CNN, the NYT and WaPo (particularly the latter two) vs. Fox -- please. Yes, CNN et al. do get breathless over diet coke, and they sometimes make mistakes or are too quick to report a story, or report a story in a way that emphasizes the negatives on Trump. I totally won't dispute that, nor will I dispute their leftward lean. (And btw, I hate MSNBC, don't like HuffPo, and cannot bear the Daily Kos, the latter two of which in particular I think of as being more equivalent to Fox.)
But when CNN, et al.'s reporters get something wrong, there's an apology and sometimes someone loses his job. And when there's a major story, they are covering it. (The diet coke stories are not being put on in lieu of actual breaking major news. And moreover, Trump actually IS behaving horribly on pretty much a daily basis. He's giving them the material.) Fox completely ignores major news or barely covers it to focus on some ancient discussion of Hillary's record, and they gleefully blast "news" that has no basis at all (and if they retract it all, do so in such an inobtrusive way it flies right over most readers (e.g., that horrible Seth Rich story they pushed). Try this -- the next time major breaking news comes that is a negative for Trump, go to Fox and see what they are covering as opposed to other news sources. When Manafort was indicted, for example, and it was plastered all over every news source (including the WSJ) and twitter, Fox was doing a story on Halloween candy. It's actually sort of entertaining, in a grim kind of way.
I will exclude Shep Smith from my anti-Fox rant, by the way. (But, heh, he sounds an awful lot like the blamestream media, doesn't he? Trump supporters routinely call for his head.) Chris Wallace is OK, too, actually, come to think of it. But the overwhelming push of Fox is to be state media for Trump.
It's not just liberals saying this. My fave conservative pundits are saying it, too. Except, heh, they are now being written off by Trump supporters as libtards. I cannot help but wonder just how many circa-2015 Republicans and conservatives are now "libtards" by that particular standard. I am guessing we'll see in 2018.
ETA:
It's interesting that you perceive such a huge difference between my views and Rob's. Rob and I go after each other with 2x4's about 25% of the time, yes, but it's my perception that we find at least some agreement most of the time.
(It's also interesting that you regard the entire board as overwhelmingly and unfairly liberal except for you and Rob. Our most liberal members have opined the opposite. )
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 18, 2017 14:37:22 GMT -5
Gotta get to work soon, so I can't answer you as fully as I'd like, Cassandra, but I'd like to point out two things:
I have NEVER called Trump wonderful. Never. Yet you put that word in quotes when referring to me. Again, I don't see why me defending some of his policies is the same as calling him wonderful. It's not. I don't think he's wonderful. Never did. In some ways he's clearly awful. But I am pleased with several policy changes he and his administration have enacted.
Also, I never called this board overwhelmingly liberal. Never. And I don't think it is. I was specifically talking about Trump discussions. I didn't even say simply 'this board', or 'overwhelmingly this board', I said "many discussions"..."regarding Trump".
See what I mean? How my words get exaggerated? How you say I think Trump is "wonderful"?
Let's unpack one paragraph because that's all I have time for now: I would also like to ask which combination is worse: - a POTUS who is personally very flawed and awful but who officially enacts reasonable or beneficial policies - a POTUS who is personally very classy and behaves like a statesman but whose policies are very damaging and could even result in mass murder (for instance, Iran deal and nukes, or letting ISIS grow into a murderous caliphate).
EDITED TO ADD: actually maybe we can consider my last question in terms of imaginary examples. Because I honestly don't think we could come to an objective discussion if we don't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 16:09:08 GMT -5
"What corruption?"
"reasonable and beneficial policies"?
To be completely honest, I'm trying to decide whether I should respond or just drop it, and I'm leaning toward the latter. Because this I know: whatever I say, whatever I use to support it, you will instantly dismiss it as "bias!" "fake news!" etc. It will all be a profound waste of time (of which I have very little at the moment), and it won't be fun. I'd rather spend it either having fun or engaging in debate where there's some chance of some light being shed somewhere for someone. I don't see the possibility of that here. I really don't. At least not now. I think history is ultimately going to have the last say on this administration, and I do not think it will be kind.
ETA:
To note, this board is full of discussions in which I (and others) rail at instances of Trump's corruption and against policies I (and others) regard as neither reasonable nor beneficial. I could rehash it all here in summary form, I could add to it at considerable length, but I genuinely just can't imagine what would be gained.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 18, 2017 17:03:42 GMT -5
If I weren't here, many discussions on this board would be an echo chamber regarding Trump (except for Rob who is pretty damned objective). Oh, bullshit. (About the echo chamber, not about Rob, though he's no more objective than anyone else). I guess you missed the part where I posted something soon after the election about not liking Trump but thinking he wouldn't be so bad (hah, my bad), and feeling some schadenfreude about all the SJWs losing their shit. And I still defend him against the more overheated "literally Hitler" crap. You are correct that no one else on the board likes Trump as much as you do, but that doesn't mean we're an echo chamber. Likewise, I've never had any love for Clinton (either one of them), and while I thought Obama was okay, I don't think he was a great president, just a decent one. The idea that only you are presenting much-needed balance is kind of silly. While you clearly have opinions, I've never really seen you map out your reasoning in a way that didn't read like boilerplate Townhall talking points, which is why I refer to your use of Google - because I really do think that's what you do when challenged, go Google what some other conservative said as a rebuttal.
|
|