Page 375 of 380 FirstFirst ... 275325365373374375376377 ... LastLast
Results 14,961 to 15,000 of 15173

Thread: Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!

  1. #14961
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    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.

  2. #14962
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    Yeah, being a Democrat really hurt Obama in the eyes of the media.
    yeah man, being born in Kenya did that

  3. #14963
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    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


  4. #14964
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    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.

  5. #14965
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    I'll repeat again: yes, there are alternative explanations, it's circumstantial evidence.
    *sigh*

  6. #14966
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    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.

    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.

  7. #14967
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    yeah man, being born in Kenya did that
    Yeah MSNBC, CNN, WashPo and the NYT really ran with that

  8. #14968
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    Yeah, being a Democrat really hurt Obama in the eyes of the media.
    ..yes? Do you not remember how conservative media treated him?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    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.

  9. #14969
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    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.

  10. #14970
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    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.

  11. #14971
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,117
    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.
    Last edited by Jon`C; 07-20-2019 at 11:46 PM.

  12. #14972
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    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


  13. #14973
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    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)_/¯

  14. #14974
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    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.

  15. #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


  16. #14976
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    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.

  17. #14977
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    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.

  18. #14978
    Child's Play CharitySon of Krokodile XVI
    Posts
    4,980
    This got rather heated overnight (as per my timezone).

  19. #14979
    Likes Kittens. Eats Fluffies
    Posts
    11,950
    I don't care what none of y'all say, I'm still With Her. :'-)

  20. #14980
    Quote Originally Posted by saberopus View Post
    I don't care what none of y'all say, I'm still With Her. :'-)
    listen her u litle ****
    sniff

  21. #14981
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    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.

  22. #14982
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    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.

  23. #14983
    Quote Originally Posted by Krokodile View Post
    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


  24. #14984
    think of how cold it is in their timezone
    sniff

  25. #14985
    Child's Play CharitySon of Krokodile XVI
    Posts
    4,980
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    LOL, if that's what passes for heated now days!
    DAMN IT WOOKIE QUIT BUSTING MY CHOPS JESUS F. CHRIST

  26. #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


  27. #14987
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Eversor; 07-23-2019 at 02:48 AM.

  28. #14988
    It's Stuart, Martha Stuart
    Posts
    7,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    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.

  29. #14989
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    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.

  30. #14990
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    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.

  31. #14991
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    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.

  32. #14992
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    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.

  33. #14993
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Reid; 07-23-2019 at 04:52 AM.

  34. #14994
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    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.

  35. #14995
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    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.

  36. #14996
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    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/politic...e-press-74832/

  37. #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.

  38. #14998
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,117
    you didn't build that

  39. #14999
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,117
    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.
    Last edited by Jon`C; 07-23-2019 at 06:42 AM.

  40. #15000
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    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.)
    Last edited by Eversor; 07-23-2019 at 08:18 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •