Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401
Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
2019-07-20, 9:28 PM #14961
Originally posted by Eversor:
Right, but as I said before, that incriminates Epstein, not Trump. Those remarks could easily be Trump repeating hearsay amongst NYC socialite circles and saying an open secret, rather than talking from direct experience. I don't think I'd take the step and infer that it implies that Trump condones the behavior or was "somewhat okay" with it; I think the remarks are entirely consistent with the idea that he was actually distancing himself from them.


I'll repeat again: yes, there are alternative explanations, it's circumstantial evidence.
2019-07-20, 9:29 PM #14962
Originally posted by Eversor:
Yeah, being a Democrat really hurt Obama in the eyes of the media. :rolleyes:
yeah man, being born in Kenya did that
2019-07-20, 9:30 PM #14963
Originally posted by Jon`C:
don;t kinkshame


I hate it when you make me go to the Urban Dictionary and I still can't figure out what you said!
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2019-07-20, 9:30 PM #14964
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Uh yeah, probably? US media is privately owned corporations? Rupert Murdoch owned several yachts? Ted Turner literally competed in the America’s Cup? Do you expect these people to be happy about the luxury tax and top marginal rate, and not to use their editorial veto to force their outlets to report negatively on the government that did those things?


I don't think financial incentives so singularly define people's motives, tbh. Not really part of my ideological worldview.

I mean, if you look at public donor lists, you'll find that there are plenty of extraordinarily wealthy Democratic donors who are using their wealth to... try to make it more difficult for extraordinarily wealthy people to use their wealth to influence politics.
former entrepreneur
2019-07-20, 9:33 PM #14965
Originally posted by Reid:
I'll repeat again: yes, there are alternative explanations, it's circumstantial evidence.


*sigh*
former entrepreneur
2019-07-20, 9:35 PM #14966
Originally posted by Eversor:
I don't think financial incentives so singularly define people's motives, tbh. Not really part of my ideological worldview.
yea Locke said something similar.

Quote:
I mean, if you look at public donor lists, you'll find that there are plenty of extraordinarily wealthy Democratic donors who are using their wealth to... try to make it more difficult for extraordinarily wealthy people to use their wealth to influence politics.
Fascinating interpretation. Please do the Canadian Liberals next.
2019-07-20, 9:35 PM #14967
Originally posted by Jon`C:
yeah man, being born in Kenya did that


Yeah MSNBC, CNN, WashPo and the NYT really ran with that
former entrepreneur
2019-07-20, 9:37 PM #14968
Originally posted by Eversor:
That's a woefully incomplete list of Clinton's scandals, FYI. Honestly, check out the Slate podcast. It's worth listening to. Sure, it's long, but it's also good, they make it entertaining and topical, I think it's mostly fair, even if a little more generous towards Clinton than it should be given what it reveals about Clinton.

AFAIK, Lawyergate wasn't a very big deal, on a scale similar to the WH travel office scandal during the Clinton admin.


Alright, I'll check it out. I'm just saying, a comparative analysis is required here, but doing one is way beyond the scope of this thread. I think you're going to struggle to prove Clinton's was worse beyond a reasonable doubt.. and listening to one podcast about Clinton's crimes will make him seem worse if only because you're focusing in on him specifically. I'll give it a listen when I have time though.

Originally posted by Eversor:
Yeah, being a Democrat really hurt Obama in the eyes of the media. :rolleyes:


..yes? Do you not remember how conservative media treated him?

Originally posted by Eversor:
I think the Clintons' party affiliation doesn't really tell the whole story. I mean, I think the Clintons actually had a complex and adversarial relationship with members of the media that didn't help them much. There was a a vicious cycle: in short, they were a little cagey because they'd gotten burned a few times, which made reporters more suspicious, and the reporters' suspicions in turn made the Clintons more cagey. Amy Chozick, who followed the HRC campaign in 2016 for the NYT, wrote about it in her 2018 book. They're also particularly bad liars.

Anyway, I'm sticking to my guns on this. I don't think it's just the "vast right-wing conspiracy", to use HRC's words, although that certainly plays a role. But it's also that the Clintons are really bad at not courting negative media attention, and that there also kind of corrupt, but more the former than the latter.


I wouldn't disagree it may be a cause of their media treatment, sure.
2019-07-20, 9:37 PM #14969
Originally posted by Eversor:
Yeah MSNBC, CNN, WashPo and the NYT really ran with that


Reid was explicitly talking about the right wing media. But when you exclude all of his predicates yeah I guess you’ve got a solid point there.
2019-07-20, 9:41 PM #14970
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Reid was explicitly talking about the right wing media. But when you exclude all of his predicates yeah I guess you’ve got a solid point there.


Sure, but Clinton was under harsh scrutiny from the so-called liberal media too. You can't attribute it all to right-wing media.
former entrepreneur
2019-07-20, 9:44 PM #14971
So here’s an example of a mistake leftists make all the time: assuming that there’s only one kind of rich person. A rich businessman donating to the Democratic Party for the purpose of mitigating the pro-rentier policies of their political opponents does not mean they are “good” people, motivated by something other than money, or even that the outcome they want is better for the rest of us than what the pro-rentier party is doing.

Like all liberal parties today, the Democrats are so comprehensively pro-business that it is difficult to imagine earnestly defending their corruption by ultra-wealthy businessmen for positive social progress.
2019-07-20, 9:44 PM #14972
Originally posted by Reid:
I'll repeat again: yes, there are alternative explanations, it's circumstantial evidence.


When the Weinstein (ei, ie?) stuff came out wasn't it revealed just how many times various comedians had made jokes about his proclivities? I imagine Epstein's "hobbies" might have been similarly known in elite circles. Don't know but you're comments reminded me of this. No need to reply since it's basically what you already responded to.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2019-07-20, 9:44 PM #14973
Originally posted by Eversor:
Sure, but Clinton was under harsh scrutiny from the so-called liberal media too. You can't attribute it all to right-wing media.


Yeah, well that’s why I attribute it to a yacht tax.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
2019-07-20, 9:45 PM #14974
Originally posted by Reid:
Alright, I'll check it out. I'm just saying, a comparative analysis is required here, but doing one is way beyond the scope of this thread. I think you're going to struggle to prove Clinton's was worse beyond a reasonable doubt.. and listening to one podcast about Clinton's crimes will make him seem worse if only because you're focusing in on him specifically. I'll give it a listen when I have time though.


Of course. I don't want to do that work.

By the way, if you do listen to that podcast, you'll also hear all about how right-wing operatives did in fact try (and often succeeded) to amplify certain scandals for political gain. It's definitely a part of the story. I just don't think it's the whole story.
former entrepreneur
2019-07-20, 9:53 PM #14975
Okay, cool. So let's agree not to discuss Clinton anymore or at least not until Trump comes up again.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2019-07-20, 9:59 PM #14976
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Okay, cool. So let's agree not to discuss Clinton anymore or at least not until Trump comes up again.


Sorry man, we like Clinton now.
former entrepreneur
2019-07-20, 10:11 PM #14977
Originally posted by Wookie06:
When the Weinstein (ei, ie?) stuff came out wasn't it revealed just how many times various comedians had made jokes about his proclivities? I imagine Epstein's "hobbies" might have been similarly known in elite circles. Don't know but you're comments reminded me of this. No need to reply since it's basically what you already responded to.


It doesn't have to be particularly strong evidence to be evidence. Being in the town where a murder happened is circumstantial evidence of your guilt for that murder. Anything which tends to circumstantially rule in favor of that turn of events is circumstantial evidence for it.
2019-07-20, 10:51 PM #14978
This got rather heated overnight (as per my timezone).
Looks like we're not going down after all, so nevermind.
2019-07-20, 10:57 PM #14979
I don't care what none of y'all say, I'm still With Her. :'-)
2019-07-20, 11:33 PM #14980
Originally posted by saberopus:
I don't care what none of y'all say, I'm still With Her. :'-)


listen her u litle ****
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2019-07-21, 3:56 AM #14981
I listened to an episode of Slow Burn. Will listen to more. All I seemed to have learned was the early Clinton days had a few minor scandals, not really worth mentioning, and that Whitewater was the biggest non-scandal ever but was blown out of proportion by conspiracy theory and from private funding by anti-Clinton billionaires, people who would later work for Newsmax. So far not really convincing me of the "scandalous" Clinton admin.
2019-07-21, 4:04 AM #14982
Though I have to say, the conspiracy theories about the deaths of Vince Foster and Seth Rich are eerily similar. It's almost as if the same exact PR people created the conspiracy theories about both.. it's like the exact same playbook.
2019-07-21, 10:36 AM #14983
Originally posted by Krokodile:
This got rather heated overnight (as per my timezone).


LOL, if that's what passes for heated now days!
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2019-07-21, 12:02 PM #14984
think of how cold it is in their timezone
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2019-07-21, 2:29 PM #14985
Originally posted by Wookie06:
LOL, if that's what passes for heated now days!


DAMN IT WOOKIE QUIT BUSTING MY CHOPS JESUS F. CHRIST
Looks like we're not going down after all, so nevermind.
2019-07-21, 3:02 PM #14986
I'm sorry. Have we met?
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2019-07-22, 7:58 AM #14987
Originally posted by Reid:
I listened to an episode of Slow Burn. Will listen to more. All I seemed to have learned was the early Clinton days had a few minor scandals, not really worth mentioning, and that Whitewater was the biggest non-scandal ever but was blown out of proportion by conspiracy theory and from private funding by anti-Clinton billionaires, people who would later work for Newsmax. So far not really convincing me of the "scandalous" Clinton admin.


Listen to the second episode, “There There.” You’ll find there a description exactly like what I’ve been talking about. When he considered running in ‘88 Bill ultimately decided not to in part because of all the accusations of infidelity he anticipated would come forward. When he ultimately did run in ‘92, he very quickly developed over the campaign cycle the nickname “slick Willy” because of his evasiveness on questions like dodging the draft and whether he smoke marijuana. His early presidency was mired in a steady drip of low-level scandal. As one Clinton supporter says of the Clintons, they were there own worst enemy when it came to addressing these scandals. They responded to scandals by becoming more secretive (because they assumed that being more forthcoming would essentially amount to giving more ammunition to opponents), which encouraged the press to believe that they had something to hide.

None of these scandals are on their own very bad or important, to my mind. But there was still nonetheless an accumulative effect from the consistency of scandals during the Clinton admin. The frequency of scandal and the way the Clintons’ conducted themselves was corrosive to trust in the presidency. I expect there were many Democrats at the time who felt they could hold their nose and tolerate the presidents’ character flaws because they liked how he ran the country (and of course there were many too who also simply didn’t care about the scandals).

So yeah, i don’t think whining about the “vast right-wing conspiracy” goes quite far enough. It’s true, no doubt, that the Clintons had some very manipulative opponents. But they also did a lot to attract negative attention.

Note: was kind of a substantial edit. Writing with jet lag.
former entrepreneur
2019-07-22, 9:37 AM #14988
Originally posted by Eversor:
I don't think financial incentives so singularly define people's motives, tbh. Not really part of my ideological worldview.


Correct. Money is one of many means to power, and power is one of several motivations we might care about for large socially impactful choices.

From everything I can tell, consumption of wealth is almost never a major motivation for these choices. I can't find hard data, but by causal observation, it's pretty clear that among the very rich, held wealth is at least a couple of orders of magnitude larger than consumed wealth.
2019-07-23, 12:45 AM #14989
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Yeah, well that’s why I attribute it to a yacht tax.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Another reason why I find it pretty unpersuasive that taxes on the wealthy can do much to account for how Clinton was portrayed by the media: Obama made the Bush tax cut permanent, except for the income tax on the most wealthy Americans, on whom the highest marginal rate returned to 39%. If raising taxes on the wealthy was really why mainstream liberal media (in addition to conservative media) outlets were so adversarial to the Clintons, they should’ve been just as adversarial towards Obama.
former entrepreneur
2019-07-23, 1:36 AM #14990
Originally posted by Eversor:
Another reason why I find it pretty unpersuasive that taxes on the wealthy can do much to account for how Clinton was portrayed by the media: Obama made the Bush tax cut permanent, except for the income tax on the most wealthy Americans, on whom the highest marginal rate returned to 39%. If raising taxes on the wealthy was really why mainstream liberal media (in addition to conservative media) outlets were so adversarial to the Clintons, they should’ve been just as adversarial towards Obama.


Was the mainstream media really that adversarial to the Clintons? That's been said quite a bit but it's not an obvious claim.
2019-07-23, 1:59 AM #14991
Originally posted by Eversor:
Another reason why I find it pretty unpersuasive that taxes on the wealthy can do much to account for how Clinton was portrayed by the media: Obama made the Bush tax cut permanent, except for the income tax on the most wealthy Americans, on whom the highest marginal rate returned to 39%. If raising taxes on the wealthy was really why mainstream liberal media (in addition to conservative media) outlets were so adversarial to the Clintons, they should’ve been just as adversarial towards Obama.


You remember the last 10 years much differently than I do.
2019-07-23, 2:38 AM #14992
Originally posted by Jon`C:
You remember the last 10 years much differently than I do.


Yeah IDK, he's making lots of claims that I think would have to be researched but they're not easy questions to answer. A comparative study of how presidents were treated by the media is no small task, and on top of that one would have to consider how different eras would effect reporting, which can't be made rigorous.
2019-07-23, 2:47 AM #14993
Originally posted by Eversor:
Listen to the second episode, “There There.” You’ll find there a description exactly like what I’ve been talking about. When he considered running in ‘88 Bill ultimately decided not to in part because of all the accusations of infidelity he anticipated would come forward. When he ultimately did run in ‘92, he very quickly developed over the campaign cycle the nickname “slick Willy” because of his evasiveness on questions like dodging the draft and whether he smoke marijuana. His early presidency was mired in a steady drip of low-level scandal. As one Clinton supporter says of the Clintons, they were there own worst enemy when it came to addressing these scandals. They responded to scandals by becoming more secretive (because they assumed that being more forthcoming would essentially amount to giving more ammunition to opponents), which encouraged the press to believe that they had something to hide.

None of these scandals are on their own very bad or important, to my mind. But there was still nonetheless an accumulative effect from the consistency of scandals during the Clinton admin. The frequency of scandal and the way the Clintons’ conducted themselves was corrosive to trust in the presidency. I expect there were many Democrats at the time who felt they could hold their nose and tolerate the presidents’ character flaws because they liked how he ran the country (and of course there were many too who also simply didn’t care about the scandals).

So yeah, i don’t think whining about the “vast right-wing conspiracy” goes quite far enough. It’s true, no doubt, that the Clintons had some very manipulative opponents. But they also did a lot to attract negative attention.

Note: was kind of a substantial edit. Writing with jet lag.


Oh, I did start with the second episode since I wasn't really interested in the Monica Lewinsky stuff. I got the impression that there was less there of substance and more just the impression of stuff.

I guess it depends what you consider a scandal. It seems you don't want to put much distance from actual scandalous activities and simply the perception of scandalous activities, as though both are equally scandalous. I think what I learned from the podcast was that there was little in the way of actual scandalous behavior, but loads in media perception. You could argue that people thought there were scandals and that the Clintons were bad at handling it, sure, but if little of it was of substance, do we still consider his presidency scandalous? I think George W. Bush's was more scandal prone TBH, in terms of actual, concrete, verified, real, not bull**** scandals like Whitewater.

I should add, one should not confuse the prose of a talented writer making implications about things for hard evidence of those things. The podcast writer likes to try and make things sound scandalous, but IMO it sounds more like he's drumming it up a bit. Because if the reality was more mundane and boring, would anyone care to listen? Any good podcaster has to exaggerate a bit for effect.
2019-07-23, 3:14 AM #14994
Originally posted by Jon`C:
You remember the last 10 years much differently than I do.


Conservative media was quite harsh towards Obama, but mainstream media wasn’t at all. It was doting and very charitable, and clearly wanted Obama to succeed in a way that was untrue with any Republican administration during my lifetime (and perhaps even the Clinton administration). At times liberal outlets’ reporting of Obama admin policy, on signature policies such as Obamacare or the JCPOA, was almost full on advocacy. This generosity of the media recognized in the popular imagination, too: there’s a reason why the “tan suit” meme carries such currency, and it’s not just anti-Trump sentiment. It’s a widespread perception that the Obama administration was morally upright and transparent, despite the fact that, according to some objective measures and in the opinion of many journalists, the Obama administration was actually in some regards less forthcoming than the Bush administration.
former entrepreneur
2019-07-23, 3:16 AM #14995
Originally posted by Reid:
Yeah IDK, he's making lots of claims that I think would have to be researched but they're not easy questions to answer. A comparative study of how presidents were treated by the media is no small task, and on top of that one would have to consider how different eras would effect reporting, which can't be made rigorous.


Sure, I’ll admit that our claims are difficult to adjudicate and our differing views are largely attributable to differing personal impressions.
former entrepreneur
2019-07-23, 3:43 AM #14996
Originally posted by Eversor:
Conservative media was quite harsh towards Obama, but mainstream media wasn’t at all. It was doting and very charitable, and clearly wanted Obama to succeed in a way that was untrue with any Republican administration during my lifetime (and perhaps even the Clinton administration). At times liberal outlets’ reporting of Obama admin policy, on signature policies such as Obamacare or the JCPOA, was almost full on advocacy. This generosity of the media recognized in the popular imagination, too: there’s a reason why the “tan suit” meme carries such currency, and it’s not just anti-Trump sentiment. It’s a widespread perception that the Obama administration was morally upright and transparent, despite the fact that, according to some objective measures and in the opinion of many journalists, the Obama administration was actually in some regards less forthcoming than the Bush administration.


OK.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-presidency-and-the-press-74832/
2019-07-23, 4:29 AM #14997


Woah, hold the phone. A former assistant press secretary for Obama says that the Obama administration was treated unfairly by the media? That’s truly shocking.
former entrepreneur
2019-07-23, 4:33 AM #14998
you didn't build that
2019-07-23, 4:39 AM #14999
I think the media's treatment of Obama was exactly one luxury tax better than its treatment of Clinton, one act of revenge for killing bankers worse than their treatment of George W. Bush in his first term, and one Iraq War better than their treatment of George W. Bush in his second.

But if you think it's just the media being the media, going to absolute **** because of business interests... that suits me fine, too.
2019-07-23, 5:41 AM #15000
Originally posted by Jon`C:
I think the media's treatment of Obama was exactly one luxury tax better than its treatment of Clinton, one act of revenge for killing bankers worse than their treatment of George W. Bush in his first term, and one Iraq War better than their treatment of George W. Bush in his second.

But if you think it's just the media being the media, going to absolute **** because of business interests... that suits me fine, too.


To the extent that there was conflict between Obama and the media, I don’t think “business interests” played the decisive role in the media’s hostility.

I well, uh, am personally familiar with media, and I don’t see reporters and editors as automatons who slavishly take marching orders/follow the dictates of their corporate overlords. If there was hostility between Obama and the media, it wasn’t because the media led some kind of organized campaign to spin a narrative to serve the interests of big business. It was because reporters and the Obama press team had goals that were broadly conflicting but occasionally overlap. The Obama admin was trying to make itself look as good as possible by making public info that made it look good and suppressing info that made it look bad. The press was trying to extract any information it could that was in the public’s interest to know and that would sell papers. The whole thing is very transactional, sometimes very hostile, and ultimately rests on personal relationships; I think you can imagine how it would be personally frustrating to be a reporter, and to work with people who withhold from you what you need to do your job well, and to work as an Obama spokesperson, and to deal with people who are trying to extract information that’ll make your boss look bad. That, to me, seems like the “conflict” Cherlin writes about in his articles, and I have to say, despite his claims to the contrary, it seems more typical than atypical of media treatment of the president. (And it’s probably more desirable than the alternative. A press secretary may wax nostalgic about “comity” between the media and the administration, but what he really wants is for the media to fall in line and be more credulous.)
former entrepreneur
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!