Political Roundtable Part X

AFM · Post #1521 » by **AFM** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 1:56 am

NYT is pretty much as left wing as it gets. For newspapers.

Induveca · Post #1522 » by **Induveca** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 1:58 am

All this being said after the Trump leak today, he's likely done. The guy was 60 when he said that. You could forgive a 25 year old, 60?

Ugh.

AFM · Post #1523 » by **AFM** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 2:03 am

60 is prime pervert age. Ask PIF, or CCJ.

AFM · Post #1524 » by **AFM** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 2:09 am

I think Donny and Hillary should phukk. Let the two perverted power hungry families combine. Their offspring would be of considerable power, and evil. Like vegeta and bulma's spawn, Trunks. He was a super saiyan at a young age.

keynote · Post #1525 » by **keynote** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 2:24 am

Induveca wrote:
keynote wrote:Hmm. So, do you think the NYT reporters are weak for getting muscled over? Or do you think they're biased?

I suppose that bias *might* be at play, but I'm not convinced. Reporter/source relationships can't be totally one-sided in favor of the reporter (source gives reporter scoop after scoop; reporter gives nothing in return). Otherwise, why would the source give scoops at all? They'd just issue press releases, tweet, etc. In the sports journalism world, Woj *has* to be giving his sources something in order to continue to get (seemingly) preferential access to scoops over his peers. But I don't fully know what that is. So, the two questions are:
1) What can/should a reporter give to a source that is enough to maintain/deepen a mutually-beneficial relationship?
2) At what point is that reporter giving too much? I.e., at what point does the reporter/source relationship become so one-sided in the source's favor that the reporter has violated their ethical duty?

Amanda Brewington the op-ed editor at The Post publishing op-ed pieces Clinton's staff wrote themselves to "help the administration"? And Clinton's staff saying "great job as always" strike you as a bit too much?

I'm not making an argument here. Honestly, I don't know. Op-eds aren't the same as reporting, no? They're opinion pieces, and the audience knows the writer is attempting to persuade, not inform.

Also: what does Clinton's staff give WaPo reporters in return? Is the juice worth the squeeze? OTOH, should that be a factor in determining whether allowing a Clinton staffer to ghostwrite an op-ed an ethical faux pas?

Everyone recognizes that journalists shouldn't be biased, but I don't have a real handle on how many deals/bargains are struck in the process of reporting -- unbiased or otherwise. A reporter unwilling to do any favors will have no sources or relationships -- and a reporter with no sources and no relationships is basically not much better than Wikipedia. So if giving a source access to an op-ed piece crosses a line, what *should* journalists do to cultivate relationships with sources instead?

I'll also note that the MSM might appear to be more biased in this election than in elections past because Clinton's staffers and surrogates are longstanding operatives who are able to leverage their longstanding relationships with reporters, whereas Trump's team comes from nontraditional sources and alt-right media outlets. I'm sure Jeb's team would've had better connections to MSM journalists than Trump's team does; OTOH, I doubt Jeb's team would be as in sync with Breitbart et al.

Post #1526 » by **montestewart** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 2:57 am

nate33 wrote:Another gem from Hillary Clinton:

Yeah, you need a "public position" to fool the voters, and a "private position" so you can collide with your donors to screw the public over.

But Trump said really crass things about women 11 years ago, so that's what's important.

Nate, I think your maleness is preventing you from recalling that Trump constantly says crass things about women, in fact he seems unable to say anything about women that is not crass: in interviews, in debates, in tweets. He rarely mentions women without commenting on their looks. This latest tape tells women that this is the way he was then and this is how he is now. It's the way he always will be, and "enlightened" wives, daughters, female campaign managers, etc. will not change the fact that the Republican nominee is a loudmouthed sexist pig. And a horrible candidate too--on a day when he should have been capitalizing on all the bad news coming out about Clinton (and a better candidate would have been capitalizing on it) he and his minions are once again stuck with coming up with lame rationalizations for his behavior.

Sure, blame this on the press, why hold Trump accountable for his missteps? The way he talks about women is a policy issue for at least 50% of the voters, just not for you. I have a lot of Republicans in my extended family, and of the ones in the East, including in swing states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, I haven't heard of one who intends to vote for Trump, and I'm not talking about independents but Republicans who are voting for Johnson or crossing party lines to vote for Clinton. They're not fooled by liberal media bias, they're not ignoring all the dirt on Clinton. I think they, like I, see politics as an inherently dishonest and cutthroat endeavor, and they usually vote according to policy positions rather than "character" issues. The dirt on Clinton, to the degree they can verify and trust it, merely confirms what they already thought about her. The new Trump tape may turn out to be the last straw for some who tried so hard to ignore what has been so obvious to so many of us from the very beginning about him.

Trump's a clown who doesn't represent and maybe doesn't even understand any particular ideology. He represents Trump. That's it, don't look any deeper. As I've said before, I'll vote for Stein. If I was voting in a swing state, I would easily vote for lying, cheating Hillary over that lying, cheating, racist, sexist, ignorant and proud of it, unhinged faux bully. (I say faux because, come on, it's all money and mouth, one good kick in the Nene and he'd shrivel, right?) I have to admit, it has been a pretty hilarious show.

And if by some hail Mary he is elected, 1) he will routinely tweet top secret information, 2) he will try to put a big TRUMP sign on the White House, 3) he will try to resurrect The Apprentice in the Oval Office, 4) he will be the first president to use the word t*ts in a speech, and 5) Putin will TOTALLY clown him (as will everybody else). None of these predictions are meant as jokes.

keynote · Post #1527 » by **keynote** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 3:03 am

Hannity (in defense of Trump): "but King David had 500 concubines."

I'm glad that he's revealed himself to be the non-Bible reading performance artist that he is. He's gone beyond Colbert-levels of meta-commentary to reach Eric André-levels of absurdism. Kudos.

Post #1528 » by **montestewart** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 3:11 am

keynote wrote:
Induveca wrote:
keynote wrote:Hmm. So, do you think the NYT reporters are weak for getting muscled over? Or do you think they're biased?

I suppose that bias *might* be at play, but I'm not convinced. Reporter/source relationships can't be totally one-sided in favor of the reporter (source gives reporter scoop after scoop; reporter gives nothing in return). Otherwise, why would the source give scoops at all? They'd just issue press releases, tweet, etc. In the sports journalism world, Woj *has* to be giving his sources something in order to continue to get (seemingly) preferential access to scoops over his peers. But I don't fully know what that is. So, the two questions are:
1) What can/should a reporter give to a source that is enough to maintain/deepen a mutually-beneficial relationship?
2) At what point is that reporter giving too much? I.e., at what point does the reporter/source relationship become so one-sided in the source's favor that the reporter has violated their ethical duty?

Amanda Brewington the op-ed editor at The Post publishing op-ed pieces Clinton's staff wrote themselves to "help the administration"? And Clinton's staff saying "great job as always" strike you as a bit too much?

I'm not making an argument here. Honestly, I don't know. Op-eds aren't the same as reporting, no? They're opinion pieces, and the audience knows the writer is attempting to persuade, not inform.

Also: what does Clinton's staff give WaPo reporters in return? Is the juice worth the squeeze? OTOH, should that be a factor in determining whether allowing a Clinton staffer to ghostwrite an op-ed an ethical faux pas?

Everyone recognizes that journalists shouldn't be biased, but I don't have a real handle on how many deals/bargains are struck in the process of reporting -- unbiased or otherwise. A reporter unwilling to do any favors will have no sources or relationships -- and a reporter with no sources and no relationships is basically not much better than Wikipedia. So if giving a source access to an op-ed piece crosses a line, what *should* journalists do to cultivate relationships with sources instead?

I'll also note that the MSM might appear to be more biased in this election than in elections past because Clinton's staffers and surrogates are longstanding operatives who are able to leverage their longstanding relationships with reporters, whereas Trump's team comes from nontraditional sources and alt-right media outlets. I'm sure Jeb's team would've had better connections to MSM journalists than Trump's team does; OTOH, I doubt Jeb's team would be as in sync with Breitbart et al.

op-ed pieces typically are biased opinion pieces, but the editor of the op-ed page should be a little more neutral than that, even where the paper has an established bias. (I don't think the Post has ever endorsed a Republican for president, have they?) I've worked in journalism in the past, and sending a story to a subject for comment and corrections is not unusual, but in such a contentious arena as politics, questioning the practice is fair game.

PS: It's Autumn Brewington, not Amanda Brewington.

AFM · Post #1529 » by **AFM** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 3:12 am

keynote wrote:Hannity (in defense of Trump): "but King David had 500 concubines."

I'm glad that he's revealed himself to be the non-Bible reading performance artist that he is. He's gone beyond Colbert-levels of meta-commentary to reach Eric André-levels of absurdism. Kudos.

Fox News is a word I can't say on these forums. It starts with an R. Breitbart gets worse press, but is an infinitely better organization.

AFM · Post #1530 » by **AFM** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 3:13 am

montestewart wrote:
nate33 wrote:Another gem from Hillary Clinton:

Yeah, you need a "public position" to fool the voters, and a "private position" so you can collide with your donors to screw the public over.

But Trump said really crass things about women 11 years ago, so that's what's important.

Nate, I think your maleness is preventing you from recalling that Trump constantly says crass things about women, in fact he seems unable to say anything about women that is not crass: in interviews, in debates, in tweets. He rarely mentions women without commenting on their looks. This latest tape tells women that this is the way he was then and this is how he is now. It's the way he always will be, and "enlightened" wives, daughters, female campaign managers, etc. will not change the fact that the Republican nominee is a loudmouthed sexist pig. And a horrible candidate too--on a day when he should have been capitalizing on all the bad news coming out about Clinton (and a better candidate would have been capitalizing on it) he and his minions are once again stuck with coming up with lame rationalizations for his behavior.

Sure, blame this on the press, why hold Trump accountable for his missteps? The way he talks about women is a policy issue for at least 50% of the voters, just not for you. I have a lot of Republicans in my extended family, and of the ones in the East, including in swing states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, I haven't heard of one who intends to vote for Trump, and I'm not talking about independents but Republicans who are voting for Johnson or crossing party lines to vote for Clinton. They're not fooled by liberal media bias, they're not ignoring all the dirt on Clinton. I think they, like I, see politics as an inherently dishonest and cutthroat endeavor, and they usually vote according to policy positions rather than "character" issues. The dirt on Clinton, to the degree they can verify and trust it, merely confirms what they already thought about her. The new Trump tape may turn out to be the last straw for some who tried so hard to ignore what has been so obvious to so many of us from the very beginning about him.

Trump's a clown who doesn't represent and maybe doesn't even understand any particular ideology. He represents Trump. That's it, don't look any deeper. As I've said before, I'll vote for Stein. If I was voting in a swing state, I would easily vote for lying, cheating Hillary over that lying, cheating, racist, sexist, ignorant and proud of it, unhinged faux bully. (I say faux because, come on, it's all money and mouth, one good kick in the Nene and he'd shrivel, right?) I have to admit, it has been a pretty hilarious show.

And if by some hail Mary he is elected, 1) he will routinely tweet top secret information, 2) he will try to put a big TRUMP sign on the White House, 3) he will try to resurrect The Apprentice in the Oval Office, 4) he will be the first president to use the word t*ts in a speech, and 5) Putin will TOTALLY clown him (as will everybody else). None of these predictions are meant as jokes.

Trump is an idiot no doubt. Yet, the conspiracy theorist in me, thinks that the Trump quotes were revealed today, afte wikileaks released the clinton schiet, To deflect from hillary. Can anyone confirm the time stamps?

Wizardspride · Post #1531 » by **Wizardspride** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 3:27 am

Read on Twitter

Wizardspride · Post #1532 » by **Wizardspride** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 3:35 am

Read on Twitter

Wizardspride · Post #1533 » by **Wizardspride** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 3:37 am

Read on Twitter

closg00 · Post #1534 » by **closg00** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 3:51 am

What Trump discussed and advocated was sexual assault while he openly cheats on his new wife, perfect candidate for pious, right-wing hypocrites.

It remains to be seen if the new Clinton emails are authentic, if true you get a glimpse of what politicians think and do behind closed doors. The debate Sunday night should be really interesting to watch these two despised candidates debate.

Post #1535 » by **montestewart** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 5:58 am

AFM wrote:
montestewart wrote:
nate33 wrote:Another gem from Hillary Clinton:

Yeah, you need a "public position" to fool the voters, and a "private position" so you can collide with your donors to screw the public over.

But Trump said really crass things about women 11 years ago, so that's what's important.

Nate, I think your maleness is preventing you from recalling that Trump constantly says crass things about women, in fact he seems unable to say anything about women that is not crass: in interviews, in debates, in tweets. He rarely mentions women without commenting on their looks. This latest tape tells women that this is the way he was then and this is how he is now. It's the way he always will be, and "enlightened" wives, daughters, female campaign managers, etc. will not change the fact that the Republican nominee is a loudmouthed sexist pig. And a horrible candidate too--on a day when he should have been capitalizing on all the bad news coming out about Clinton (and a better candidate would have been capitalizing on it) he and his minions are once again stuck with coming up with lame rationalizations for his behavior.

Sure, blame this on the press, why hold Trump accountable for his missteps? The way he talks about women is a policy issue for at least 50% of the voters, just not for you. I have a lot of Republicans in my extended family, and of the ones in the East, including in swing states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, I haven't heard of one who intends to vote for Trump, and I'm not talking about independents but Republicans who are voting for Johnson or crossing party lines to vote for Clinton. They're not fooled by liberal media bias, they're not ignoring all the dirt on Clinton. I think they, like I, see politics as an inherently dishonest and cutthroat endeavor, and they usually vote according to policy positions rather than "character" issues. The dirt on Clinton, to the degree they can verify and trust it, merely confirms what they already thought about her. The new Trump tape may turn out to be the last straw for some who tried so hard to ignore what has been so obvious to so many of us from the very beginning about him.

Trump's a clown who doesn't represent and maybe doesn't even understand any particular ideology. He represents Trump. That's it, don't look any deeper. As I've said before, I'll vote for Stein. If I was voting in a swing state, I would easily vote for lying, cheating Hillary over that lying, cheating, racist, sexist, ignorant and proud of it, unhinged faux bully. (I say faux because, come on, it's all money and mouth, one good kick in the Nene and he'd shrivel, right?) I have to admit, it has been a pretty hilarious show.

And if by some hail Mary he is elected, 1) he will routinely tweet top secret information, 2) he will try to put a big TRUMP sign on the White House, 3) he will try to resurrect The Apprentice in the Oval Office, 4) he will be the first president to use the word t*ts in a speech, and 5) Putin will TOTALLY clown him (as will everybody else). None of these predictions are meant as jokes.

Trump is an idiot no doubt. Yet, the conspiracy theorist in me, thinks that the Trump quotes were revealed today, afte wikileaks released the clinton schiet, To deflect from hillary. Can anyone confirm the time stamps?

A true conspiracy theorist would be wondering about a Putin-Wikileaks/Snowdon/Guccifer alliance intended to insure that Trump/Clinton loses yet Clinton/Trump takes office trailing so much dirt that the very fabric of democracy weakens and begins to fray, the ripped seams paving the way for secular-satanic anarchy. Sa da tay.

Trump people do not play nice, but they really need a Karl Rove or something. Clinton team is just better at this game. Nothing that comes out about Trump tells me he's any more honest than Clinton. She's just better at that game too. You want a smart criminal or a stupid criminal? Honest question, I guess you could argue for the stupid one at least being more unintentionally transparent.

FAH1223 · Post #1536 » by **FAH1223** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 7:38 am

Read on Twitter

Wizardspride · Post #1537 » by **Wizardspride** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 11:42 am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-erin-burnett-video_us_57f83edce4b0b6a430326776

CNN’s Erin Burnett Reports Donald Trump Kissed Her Friend Without Consent

CNN’s Erin Burnett reported Friday night that a woman she’s friends with told her that in 2010, Donald Trump kissed her without her consent. Burnett reported that the GOP presidential nominee allegedly invited the woman into his office alone, told her she was special and gave her his cell phone number. “I ran the hell out of there,” the woman told Burnett.

The report of the alleged assault comes hours after an explicit 2005 video emerged in which Trump can be heard discussing women in lewd terms to TV show host Billy Bush, saying, “I’m automatically attracted to beautiful [women]. I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.” Trump goes on to say that “when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

In the video, which was obtained by The Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold, Trump says, “I gotta use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her,” referring to a soap opera actress he was about to meet.

Burnett’s friend said she recognized that detail. “The Tic Tacs,” Burnett said, quoting her friend. “That’s exactly what Trump did to me. Trump took Tic Tacs, suggested that I take them also. He then leaned in ... catching me off guard and kissed me almost on the lips. I was really freaked out.”

The woman told Burnett that after kissing her without her consent, “Trump asked me to come into his office alone. I figured I could handle myself. Anyway, once in his office he kept telling me how special I am and gave me his cell phone and asked me to call him. I ran the hell out of there.”

The story Burnett reported is not the first time Donald Trump has been accused of doing exactly what he brags about in the video: kissing women without their consent. In May, as part of a story reporting on Trump’s long history of inappropriate behavior toward women, The New York Times reported that in 1997 Trump kissed Temple Taggart, then the 21-year-old Miss Utah, on the lips without asking. “He kissed me directly on the lips,” she told the NYT. “I thought, ‘Oh my God, gross.’” Taggart added that she thought “there were a few other girls that he kissed on the mouth. I was like ‘Wow, that’s inappropriate.’”

Kanyewest · Post #1538 » by **Kanyewest** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 1:59 pm

nate33 wrote:Another gem from Hillary Clinton:

Yeah, you need a "public position" to fool the voters, and a "private position" so you can collude with your donors to screw the public over.

But Trump said really crass things about women 11 years ago, so that's what's important.

Ben Carson said there are two Donald Trumps and this was viewed as a good thing when he endorsed him.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/ben-carson-endorses-donald-trump-220629

Post #1539 » by **montestewart** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 2:29 pm

Kanyewest wrote:
nate33 wrote:Another gem from Hillary Clinton:

Yeah, you need a "public position" to fool the voters, and a "private position" so you can collude with your donors to screw the public over.

But Trump said really crass things about women 11 years ago, so that's what's important.

Ben Carson said there are two Donald Trumps and this was viewed as a good thing when he endorsed him.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/ben-carson-endorses-donald-trump-220629

Trump, only candidate in U.S. history who needs to come up with an alternative to pvssy to use in public communications.

PS: There are two Ben Carsons as well, a public one and a private one. I hear the private one is actually quite sane.

tontoz · Post #1540 » by **tontoz** » Sat Oct 8, 2016 2:30 pm