Political Roundtable Part X

[montestewart]

Read on Twitter

Whoops

[Induveca]

I would take a bayesian approach. Assume a news source is unbiased until presented with evidence of bias. Weigh the credibility of each news organization according to each case of bias you come across. Categorize the news sources according to the kind of bias they have. Be smart. Don't just believe every gatdam thing you read.

Oh boohoo I said something you don't believe in and you can't counter it, wah. My heart bleeds for you. If your feelings get hurt when someone points out you're wrong try not being wrong.

If you're 5'7" and can't shoot no one's going to throw you a pity party because you didn't make the NBA. This is a pro's thread and if you can't bring it get the hell out.

Did you have a stroke between your first and second paragraphs?

That response belongs in the hall of fame. Ha!

[DCZards]

Uh-oh. Trump is 10 pts. down in the latest Fox poll. For a Repub presidential candidate to be 10 pts down in a Fox poll probably means he's 12-15 pts down in reality.

Keep talking and tweeting Donald...it will help guarantee that the hole you're in gets deeper.

[nate33]

NBC Scrubs Andrea Mitchell Calling Bill Clinton’s Rape Accuser ‘Discredited’

The seasoned news anchor was accused of bias for her remarks about Broaddrick’s rape allegation against Clinton, which she made during a video package about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in May.

“Donald Trump using that word [rape] unprompted during an interview last night with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, bringing up a discredited and long-denied accusation against former president Bill Clinton, dating back to 1978 when he was Arkansas Attorney General,” Mitchell says in a voice over for the original segment.

The segment is still available on NBC News and lists a May 19 dateline. However, Mitchell’s remark that Broaddrick’s accusation is “discredited” has been deleted. Mitchell only says the rape has been “long denied” by the Clintons. The audio jumps forward awkwardly, indicating that it was edited.

Totally Orweillian. They are rewriting recorded history.

[JWizmentality]

Read on Twitter

What did I miss??? What did she let slip?

[montestewart]

Monte I found PDFs of his original writings if you're actually interested. I'm on my phone so I don't have an easy way to link to them right now

The whole thing is blown out of proportion. Obviously it's a bad look for the dems to have someone who believes in sharia law speaking at their convention

Whenever you get a chance, thanks.

https://www.docdroid.net/pRyHOFo/juristic-classification-islamic-law.pdf.html

Thanks for the link. Such a short article (13 pages), you'd think that more of the many sites covering the story would provide a link to the source material, and let readers make up their own minds, rather than cutting and pasting as they have. This most damning article is nothing more than a very brief survey and history of the primary and secondary sources for Islamic law, written for American and other non-Islamic readers. Most interesting to me is that the primary two passages presented (partially quoted) as smoking guns are the passages that convince me there is nothing there.

"[T]he invariable and basic rules of Islamic Law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah (Quran and Sunnah), which are few and limited. All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.”

This passage says Islamic Law comes from the Quran and Sunnah. In the course of the article, the only other sources referenced are subsequent Islamic juridical works, and it is these works that he says "must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah." No pre-Islamic works, secular works, Western works (the Constitution, etc.) are referenced. Whether or not he believes he must obey Islamic law over the U.S. Constitution when practicing law in the United States isn't referenced in the article.

The other passage repeatedly quoted from is printed in its entirety below (I've bolded some sections):

It has to be admitted, however, that the Quran, being basically a book of religious guidance, is not an easy reference for legal studies. It is more particularly an appeal to faith and the human soul rather than a classification of legal prescriptions. Such prescriptions are comparatively limited and few. Family law is laid down in seventy injunctions; civil law in another seventy; penal law in thirty; jurisdiction and procedure in thirteen; constitutional law in ten; international relations in twenty-five; and economic and financial order in ten. Such an enumeration, however, can only be approximate. The legal bearing of some injunctions is disputable, whereas in some others it simultaneously applies to more than one sphere of law. The major portion of the Quran is, as with every Holy Book, a code of divine exhortation and moral principals.

The Quran is the highest authority, but phrases like "not an easy reference for legal studies" and "the legal bearing of some injunctions is disputable" indicate that application of Islamic law is not necessarily easy and may require interpretation. To me, this as much implies flexibility as it does rigidity, and looks like it is written by a lawyer who had no interest in alienating potential Western clients or employers.

In combination with the website, there's really nothing there. This conspiracy was written (and repeated verbatim on countless conservative sites) for people who needed no convincing, had no interest in reviewing primary sources, or were simply unwilling or unable to critically analyze the evidence. Maybe at some point, some actual proof will emerge, but this evidence proves nothing and doesn't pass the laugh test.

Go Wiz!

[montestewart]

Read on Twitter

What did I miss??? What did she let slip?

"We're going to raise taxes for the middle class!" I assume she meant to say "lower taxes" or "upper class," but who knows. Pretty Hillerious

[tontoz]

In combination with the website, there's really nothing there. This conspiracy was written (and repeated verbatim on countless conservative sites) for people who needed no convincing, had no interest in reviewing primary sources, or were simply unwilling or unable to critically analyze the evidence. Maybe at some point, some actual proof will emerge, but this evidence proves nothing and doesn't pass the laugh test.

Go Wiz!

Let me see if i have this straight. You are saying that Khan believes in Sharia Law but at the same time are saying there is nothing there?

[JWizmentality]

Read on Twitter

What did I miss??? What did she let slip?

"We're going to raise taxes for the middle class!" I assume she meant to say "lower taxes" or "upper class," but who knows. Pretty Hillerious

I played it a few times and heard "We aren't"...but I also hear it the other way. Meh

[montestewart]

In combination with the website, there's really nothing there. This conspiracy was written (and repeated verbatim on countless conservative sites) for people who needed no convincing, had no interest in reviewing primary sources, or were simply unwilling or unable to critically analyze the evidence. Maybe at some point, some actual proof will emerge, but this evidence proves nothing and doesn't pass the laugh test.

Go Wiz!

Let me see if i have this straight. You are saying that Khan believes in Sharia Law but at the same time are saying there is nothing there?

Excellent reductio ad ridiculo!

[JWizmentality]

Unless some monumental new email scandal drops for Clinton, I see this lead getting bigger and bigger. With most of the voter ID laws also struck down, this election might not be as close as we once thought.

[payitforward]

Breitbart is not a legitimate publication. IDK why people are even talking about it.

The mainstream media outlets have proven to be completely controlled by the Democrats and have lost all credibility with me. There is no independence whatsoever at this point and I now view them as the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.

Breitbart is surely a partisan outlet as well, but they are a partisan counterpart to the partisan New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News, CNN, et al.

I only read Breitbart because otherwise I get my info from CNN and The Washington Post. I don't even consider myself conservative, I just think it's best to get both sides of an issue. I don't watch Fox News for obvious reasons.

This false equivalence bothers me. The NYT, WaPo, etc., are not the same as, say, Gawker. The former put out well-researched, well-reported stories. When they get called on factual errors, they print retractions. You can question their editorial decisions (what to publish, what not to publish). You can quibble with their headline writing teams. And, you can disagree with their columnists, if their world view doesn't match yours. Gawker, OTOH, is more willing to wade in the muck; their editorial standards are looser. Ditto for HuffPo.

The WSJ, for its part, is a right-leaning publication. But they too publish well-researched, well-reported stories. If they get something wrong, they retract. I haven't read the Washington Times in years, but IIRC, they attempted to provide well-researched, well-reported stories, coupled with right-leaning columns and analysis.

Breitbart, OTOH, is a rag. If these Khan articles are any evidence of their journalistic standards, they're willing to publish anything, no matter how thinly supported, just to get a rise out of their base. I don't think I've ever seen Gawker publish anything this shoddy.

I don't post in this thread much; I usually lurk, roll my eyes at one position or another, and move on. But this Breitbart piece got my goat because I'm a patent attorney. And Breitbart's willingness to publish an article attempting to six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon their way into drawing a connection between Khan and Clinton by pointing to Hogan's representation of a company who acquired a patent relating to technology in Clinton's email server was just...appallingly bad. Not just partisan. Bad.

Mind you, according to the piece, the Hogan client "acquired" the patent -- which means they could've just bought it along with a bunch of other assets. The piece doesn't describe the technology in question, so the patent could've related to *anything* relating to email servers. And, the manufacturers of the actual hardware and/or developers of the actual software in Clinton's server particular may not have been the actual patent owner (or the previous patent owner, if the Hogan client acquired it by assignment). They may have been a licensee; or, they may have simply been infringing (i.e., using the technology without the patent owner's permission).

It's so bad, that the writer of the piece -- and the editors -- *had* to know it. They just didn't care.

And of course, Breitbart readers parrot it as if it's the gospel truth:

Yup. Khan's law firm has deep ties to the Clinton Foundation, Saudi Arabia, and even Clinton's home brew email server.

Do *not* pretend as if Breitbart is the journalistic equivalent of the NYT and WaPo, merely because they print stuff you like to read.

What my man keynote said.

[AFM]

Regardless of politics, I think we can all agree here, that this guy is a Muslim Brotherhood sleeper cell, sent here by ISIS to rape our women and overspice our food. Allahu Akbar, may we cast stones at you for showing a bare ankle in public!

[payitforward]

I'm kinda blown away by what appears to be the right wing tenor of the political opinions of people w/ whom I so often agree about the Washington Wizards.

It's hard for me to imagine having even one positive response to Donald Trump, for example -- and I'd have said the same thing a couple of years ago; i.e. he seemed like a complete jerk to me well before he decided to enter politics. Hence, it's incomprehensible to me that people could view him in a positive light as potentially the POTUS.

As for the conspiratorial rhetoric, especially in re: Mr. Khan, truly I don't understand it at all. I don't care whom he worked for. I don't even care how he got his convention spotlight. What he said was important. And the part of it directed at Trump was based on the guy's rhetoric and nothing else.

There were many ways Donald Trump would have engaged the issue that would have been useful to his candidacy, or at least less negative to it than what he did. His reactions to Khan are themselves sufficient indication (to me at least) that it'd be easy to get his goat. I find it hard to see that as a good quality for a President.

PIF, I agree with you completely. It honestly speaks to the toxicity of both candidates.

I can't bring myself to root for Clinton, far far far too much baggage and political corruption between her/Bill.

Trump I can at least define, and understand. I'm forced to deal with guys like him a lot. He's an abrasive loudmouth NYC business magnate screaming a lot of common sense. I don't see any "evil", I see an old school egomaniacal/ultra-competitive jerk of a NY businessman who wants to win in everything he does.

Which is more likely to force change in DC, any change? Sadly these two are my horrific options.

I appreciate the support -- however qualified it may be! I have been genuinely shocked by the attitudes I've seen in this thread.

I don't think, however, that Donald Trump is "screaming a lot of common sense." And I'd be happy if we were talking here about the content of what he says -- is it "common sense" or is it something else? And by "it" I do mean the particulars of his speech: his claims and statements, one by one, not some ideological overblow portrait. I'd be comfortable in my ability to participate in such a conversation. And in my willingness to have my mind changed by actual fact and persuasive argument -- especially if those with whom I was talking showed the same willingness.

We are not, however, discussing such issues or such statements. Instead, we get to look at photo-shopped assemblages of headlines, we get to read confected tales of conspiracies and control on a global scale, and we get to watch history be redrawn at a coloring book level to match whatever carved-in-stone ideology a person has adopted.

Hillary Clinton will be a "business as usual" President. I don't have to love that idea, and I don't have to love that candidate to find them both far more palatable than Trump -- without even attaching your adjectives to the guy.

Perhaps Trump would also be a "business as usual" President, who knows? But the two scenarios that seem more likely to me are either 1) he would be a one-term, do-nothing President, or 2) he would precipitate one or more disasters the cost of which we'd wind up paying over decades (as via the rise of ISIS we are paying the bill for our idiotic adventure in Iraq). The first is more likely, but the second is too dangerous -- especially because of his utter lack of experience, his evident callousness and carelessness about human beings, his thin skin, and his blowhard devotion to himself and how right he is.

The Republican Party is in shambles. Still, it wasn't Donald Trump who did it. This is the apotheosis of the Karl Rove strategy. The pigeons have come home to roost, and they are pooping all over everything. Why would anyone be surprised, I wonder?

[payitforward]

Just take a good look at that image I posted. Dozens of media outlets all used the exact same, unique term to describe Trump's speech: "dark". That doesn't happen by accident. It happens because a DNC operative emails all of the media outlets and asks them to do so. How can a Trump supporter take the media seriously when they know this stuff is happening?

Within the last year people on CNN and elsewhere all fell in love with doubled down and it became the latest trite cliche that spread like wildfire. Print and television journalism lacks original writing, and they constantly copy each others' terms and phrasing. It doesn't take the DNC to make that happen. Dark is a short word that makes for a good if unoriginal headline.

Sometimes I think people just feel more secure in a world filled with conspiracies than they do in a world filled with incompetence and apathy.

Simple question, Nate: how many of the headlines in that single image can you find individually anywhere in that same format? How many of them can you provide here?

Perhaps they are all legit. But believing that they are is quite different from actually, as you say, "providing data." In fact, it is the very practice you ascribe to the poor fools who read the mainstream media.

Monte's point is also on target. And what I wonder is -- what has happened that is so awful? In what sense is the US no longer "great?" What, in short, are Trump supporters complaining so much about?

[dckingsfan]

And what I wonder is -- what has happened that is so awful? In what sense is the US no longer "great?" What, in short, are Trump supporters complaining so much about?

I would say it would be this:

[dckingsfan]

And for Bernie's gang, I would say this:

[AFM]

I'm kinda blown away by what appears to be the right wing tenor of the political opinions of people w/ whom I so often agree about the Washington Wizards.

It's hard for me to imagine having even one positive response to Donald Trump, for example -- and I'd have said the same thing a couple of years ago; i.e. he seemed like a complete jerk to me well before he decided to enter politics. Hence, it's incomprehensible to me that people could view him in a positive light as potentially the POTUS.

As for the conspiratorial rhetoric, especially in re: Mr. Khan, truly I don't understand it at all. I don't care whom he worked for. I don't even care how he got his convention spotlight. What he said was important. And the part of it directed at Trump was based on the guy's rhetoric and nothing else.

There were many ways Donald Trump would have engaged the issue that would have been useful to his candidacy, or at least less negative to it than what he did. His reactions to Khan are themselves sufficient indication (to me at least) that it'd be easy to get his goat. I find it hard to see that as a good quality for a President.

PIF, I agree with you completely. It honestly speaks to the toxicity of both candidates.

I can't bring myself to root for Clinton, far far far too much baggage and political corruption between her/Bill.

Trump I can at least define, and understand. I'm forced to deal with guys like him a lot. He's an abrasive loudmouth NYC business magnate screaming a lot of common sense. I don't see any "evil", I see an old school egomaniacal/ultra-competitive jerk of a NY businessman who wants to win in everything he does.

Which is more likely to force change in DC, any change? Sadly these two are my horrific options.

I appreciate the support -- however qualified it may be! I have been genuinely shocked by the attitudes I've seen in this thread.

I don't think, however, that Donald Trump is "screaming a lot of common sense." And I'd be happy if we were talking here about the content of what he says -- is it "common sense" or is it something else? And by "it" I do mean the particulars of his speech: his claims and statements, one by one, not some ideological overblow portrait. I'd be comfortable in my ability to participate in such a conversation. And in my willingness to have my mind changed by actual fact and persuasive argument -- especially if those with whom I was talking showed the same willingness.

We are not, however, discussing such issues or such statements. Instead, we get to look at photo-shopped assemblages of headlines, we get to read confected tales of conspiracies and control on a global scale, and we get to watch history be redrawn at a coloring book level to match whatever carved-in-stone ideology a person has adopted.

Hillary Clinton will be a "business as usual" President. I don't have to love that idea, and I don't have to love that candidate to find them both far more palatable than Trump -- without even attaching your adjectives to the guy.

Perhaps Trump would also be a "business as usual" President, who knows? But the two scenarios that seem more likely to me are either 1) he would be a one-term, do-nothing President, or 2) he would precipitate one or more disasters the cost of which we'd wind up paying over decades (as via the rise of ISIS we are paying the bill for our idiotic adventure in Iraq). The first is more likely, but the second is too dangerous -- especially because of his utter lack of experience, his evident callousness and carelessness about human beings, his thin skin, and his blowhard devotion to himself and how right he is.

The Republican Party is in shambles. Still, it wasn't Donald Trump who did it. This is the apotheosis of the Karl Rove strategy. The pigeons have come home to roost, and they are pooping all over everything. Why would anyone be surprised, I wonder?

We've talked about the actual issues as nauseum, I assure you.
Where we are in this thread, since you just joined, is the equivalent of any of the offseason Wizards threads, speculating over Beal's height in relation to Grunfeld's (did he grow an inch?) or John Wall's sudden weight gain.

Can't believe there's still 100 days until the election. Just **** choose someone already.

[montestewart]

I listened to the Town Hall on CNN. Johnson and Weld did a pretty good job presenting their alternative and getting a little publicity.

[dckingsfan]

And for BLM - 85.4% of blacks don't have a college degree (Grabstats).