They are talking about the first 2 paragraphs of the Washington Post's report on Trump's trip to Iraq:
President Trump touched down Wednesday in Iraq in his first visit to a conflict zone as commander in chief, a week after announcing a victory over the Islamic State that his own Pentagon and State Department days earlier said remained incomplete.In the words of the WSJ: "[C]an anyone reading those opening two sentences wonder why millions of Americans believe Donald Trump when he tells them that he can’t get a fair shake from the press?"
The president’s visit to Al Asad Air Base west of Baghdad, which was shrouded in secrecy, follows months of public pressure for him to spend time with troops deployed to conflicts in the Middle East and punctuates the biggest week of turmoil the Pentagon has faced during his presidency.
I'll just add that I can barely read the news these days (and I absolutely cannot watch it on TV). The negativity toward Trump is so relentless, cluttering up everything. It's crying wolf times a thousand. If anything is worth taking seriously, I'm afraid I won't be able to notice.
পোস্টগুলি
৩২৭টি মন্তব্য:
327 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»The Press keeps their marginal worth below the marginal cost of the powder to blow them to Hell.
Who, what, where, when, how, and why.
I learned that in grade school (back when the NYT was said to be a paper of record). Too bad so many journo-listers didn't learn that in j-school. Or maybe they did, but it's just so much more fun to spin everything into the preferred orange-man-bad narrative.
News is supposed to be about events. Reporting the facts. Trump went to XXX place on XXX date. Trump stated XXXX about this visit. This happened during the visit which lasted XXXX time.
With very few exceptions those two paragraphs from the WP are all commentary, opinion and weasel words to try to get the reader to think a certain way. The News is about occurrences. If they want to editorialize or publish opinions, there is a place for that.
Otherwise....it just fake news and we turn the media off.
I'm like Jack Webb. Just the facts ma'am.
The negativity toward Trump is so relentless, cluttering up everything. It's crying wolf times a thousand. If anything is worth taking seriously, I'm afraid I won't be able to notice.
My sentiments exactly.
About 8 years ago I stopped watching the news - I now just leave the room when someone turns on any news station.
About three years ago I stopped reading the news, except for the headlines on bing.com.
I get my news from blogs where there is a certain amount of pre-digestion, and I find that I miss the initial contact with the news not at all.
I was saddened that Betsy shut down Betsy's page after 15+ years of excellent history teacher analysis of the day's news.
Ann, stay tough, I don't think you are replacable to me.
-XC
So they should just let the constant stream of lies go? Not bring it up? Or maybe Trump could stop lying - how about that?
So they should just let the constant stream of lies go?
List them or GTFO.
I’d say the TDS that the MSM has exposes them for the liberal hacks they have always been.
The same people who have TDS believing in global warming. They also love open borders.
TDS has - on the whole - been a good thing as applied to the media. On the other hand, it has ruined the credibility of the FBI and DOJ unless the new guy starts prosecuting the likes of Comey and McCabe.
We are fishing from the same boat.
So they should just let the constant stream of lies go? Not bring it up? Or maybe Trump could stop lying - how about that?
Again....the distinct difference between NEWS reporting and OPINION columns seems to be lost to you.
You are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to make up your own facts.
As Althouse noted...does everything have to be about Trump? NO. It doesn't and it is making the rest of us sick and tired of the so called news.
It's crying wolf times a thousand
and when/if an actual dictator comes along, who's going to notice? If the press says anything, it will be the same things they've been saying about every republican since Reagan.
Of course, in reality; once the shooting starts, the entire msm and hollywood will toe the line and say that it's great (on account of because that they won't want to be shot).
"So they should just let the constant stream of lies go?"
Well it would be nice if the press stopped lying, yes. <rimshot>
But seriously – that excerpt contained only 1 actual fact; that Trump visited Afghanistan. All the rest of it was editorializing and propaganda. Are you proposing that, as part of a package deal, that Trump stop his "lies" (unlisted) and the press will stop theirs (as excerpted above)?
"and when/if an actual dictator comes along, who's going to notice? If the press says anything, it will be the same things they've been saying about every republican since Reagan"
When the dictatorship comes, it will be from the left, and it will be for your own good, citizen.
Too bad MARK stopped reading your blog early!
I can only feature such virulent "reporting" as on Trump in 1930s Germany. That didn't end well. While I know it is partially due to the press ignoring the blatant corruption of the dumbocrats in the previous administration's 8 years and having to drown that out. It is an outright attempt to poison the American people's well. I visualize the brat laying on their back, kicking and screaming on a supermarket floor. Shame they won't hold their breath. Sadly, it's all about the ad revenue! Noble of them, eh?
I assure you that those on the left, like John above and Tank's own brother, read the Wash Post and eat up every word nodding along in agreement. As to them, no credibility is lost.
Althouse is correct that it is difficult to read or listen to any "news" these days without being exasperated. Tank is often exposed to CNN or MSNBC as the gym. It is remarkably biased, infantile and dishonest, painful to watch. It seems rare that there is a story that is not, in one way or another, an anti-Trump hit piece. My local paper, The Star News, is totally committed to the left from the first page onward. When on the road, we see USA Today, again remarkably biased to the left.
Now it's "turmoil" rather than "chaos".
One actual fact
No, Trump said we had achieved victory over Isis and the Pentagon said we hadn’t. Both are facts.
Do you need direct quotes from Trump and the Pentagon spokesperson?
News today all comes with a pre-set narrative.
I followed a link from Cookie that supported his claim of pollution caused by fracking. I scanned the headlines starting some sections of the story. One 'reported' that a fracking co. was sued, and had to update a towns water infrastructure...here's the lie...because fracking contaminated the ground water.
Infrastructure does not address polluted ground water. I thought maybe a reverse osmosis water filtration system. But no, no mention of that. As a reader I am forced to assume the article is all narrative advacement, because facts dont appear in the story.
Rush used to do an SUV update, 20 years ago, when SUV's were Suburbans and such, not today's ubiquitous hybrid crossovers. He would take a news story about the evil some SUV did.Crash of some sort. The story never mentioned the drivers, just the evil SUV
Much like gun crime. Not a murder rampage by a person, but evil guns doing evil.
The amateur liars are crowding out the Professional Liars and giving everyone a bad name.
No, Trump said we had achieved victory over Isis and the Pentagon said we hadn’t. Both are facts.
Which one said a YouTube video was the reason for Benghazi?
Which one didn't say we had drones in Benghazi that could have saved the Americans on the roof in minutes?
It worked in the mid-terms, so we're only going to get more of it.
John: No, Trump said we had achieved victory over Isis and the Pentagon said we hadn’t. Both are facts.
Yes. It is a fact that they both said those things.
HOWEVER, whether the underlying statement of whether there is victory or not victory still remains OPINION.
nfrastructure does not address polluted ground water. I
That’s exactly what it does. Boston’s water was brackish so they built a reservoir in the Berkshires to provide fresh water. Same with NYC and their reservoirs in the Adarondacs.
Want to try again?
Michael The Magnificent said...
Who, what, where, when, how, and why.
---
Eat rocks, idiot.
The president’s visit to Al Asad Air Base west of Baghdad, which was shrouded in secrecy,
Would it kill the WaPo to have Copy Editors, or to have Journalists who can write properly?
Why, for example, is Baghdad shrouded in secrecy?
Care to read it again?
President Trump touched down Wednesday in Iraq in his first visit to a conflict zone as commander in chief, a week after announcing a victory over the Islamic State that his own Pentagon and State Department days earlier said remained incomplete.
Fact with no opinion as you just stated. Care to withdraw your complaint?
Scott Walker received the same treatment for 8 years. We joke around here about the "daily Scott Walker hit piece" in the local La Crosse Tribune.
Why, for example, is Baghdad shrouded in secrecy?
It’s a news story not a multi volume history for one.
John above is a perfect example of why the MSM produces and encourages hysteria. He is exasperated that the rest of us don't see what, to him, is plain as day. The Trump as liar meme is one of the oldest, and most repeated, of all the smears.
They do it because it works. Facts, actual dates, times, and other information are only important if they reinforce the narrative. Look at any news aggregate site, like Google News. Remarkable that all the headlines, about Trump, all use the same key words. When 30 or 40 or more papers all do that, it isn't news anymore, it's propaganda. Pravda and Peoples daily never managed such a complete take over of the 'truth' like the MSM has done, since George the first.
It is really shameful behavior, and makes it difficult to tell what is actually happening.
I can envision John dancing on Trumps grave. I doubt he will dance when the actual reality of a state owned press becomes to obvious to ignore.
When the reality you see everyday is actively and aggressively denied by the state, and its news outlets-thats totalitarianism.
Blogger Dust Bunny Queen said...
News is supposed to be about events. Reporting the facts. Trump went to XXX place on XXX date. Trump stated XXXX about this visit. This happened during the visit which lasted XXXX time.
With very few exceptions those two paragraphs from the WP are all commentary, opinion and weasel words to try to get the reader to think a certain way. The News is about occurrences. If they want to editorialize or publish opinions, there is a place for that.
Otherwise....it just fake news and we turn the media off.
I'm like Jack Webb. Just the facts ma'am.
12/27/18, 7:46 AM
---
Ahahahahaha, Dust Bunny Queen! You're a buffoon. Let's list the WAPO claims, and you tell me the commentary, opinion, and weasel words, and be sure to show me that the "facts" are the rare exceptions:
1) President Trump touched down Wednesday in Iraq
2) This was his first visit to a conflict zone as commander in chief
3) This was a week after announcing a victory over the Islamic State
4) His own Pentagon and State Department days earlier said the victory remained incomplete
5) The president visited Al Asad Air Base west of Baghdad
6) The visit was shrouded in secrecy
7) The visit follows months of public pressure for him to spend time with troops deployed to conflicts in the Middle East
8) The visit punctuates the biggest week of turmoil the Pentagon has faced during his presidency
I look forward to your analysis, mouth-breathing idiot.
It’s a news story not a multi volume history for one.
MadMan was pointing out an obvious grammatical error.
John, in reality the visit was shrouded in mystery. But that's not what the intrepid reporter wrote.
One of my daily reads used to be Memeorandum. Since the election of Trump, that website has gone full time Trump hate. It's as if Chuck owns it.
Do you know what a copy editor does, MadisonMan?
At the WaPo, very little.
(/rimshot)
MadisonMan,
Hahahahaha. Nice try, but wrong. References don't work by mindless algorithm, as anyone competent with the language has long since learned. Sheeeeesh. Is this the best Althouse's gang can come up with?
The News:
"President Trump touched down Wednesday in Iraq in his first visit to a conflict zone as commander in chief. The president’s visit to Al Asad Air Base west of Baghdad was shrouded in secrecy."
The rest? Opinion or contraposition of others' opinions, to embellish the news with a chosen slant.
The result? The Newspaper has become the Opinionpaper.
The Trump as liar meme
Are you arguing that he doesn’t tend to lie a lot?
The only difference between media then (pick an era) and media now is the Internet. We can fact check their A$$. Took two hours for the Dan Rather CBS TANG documents to be shown to be fake. They are still trying but it doesn’t work like it used too.
Blogger John said...
nfrastructure does not address polluted ground water. I
That’s exactly what it does. Boston’s water was brackish so they built a reservoir in the Berkshires to provide fresh water. Same with NYC and their reservoirs in the Adarondacs.
Want to try again?
12/27/18, 8:17 AM
Thanks for helping me make my point.
Brackish water is surface water, not ground water. No crime in being ignorant. As Obama's foreign policy expert Ben Rhodes explained, "today's reporters are young with little experience and literally know nothing"
Speaking of fracking, didn't Obama recently take credit for the expansion of oil and gas production in the US?
It must be true because only Trump lies.
Craig if you can't see the grammar error -- that a copy editor should catch and remove -- in the quoted Post screed, then I can't help you.
I sometimes watch Morning Joe during the commercial breaks on CNBC. They're all totally unhinged. I'll watch for about a minute and then switch over to TCM. Those old movies soothe my nerves.
Blogger MadisonMan said...
Craig if you can't see the grammar error -- that a copy editor should catch and remove -- in the quoted Post screed, then I can't help you.
12/27/18, 8:32 AM
---
I'll agree that _you_ can't help _me_. We can disagree about whether English's referent systems are as incompetent as you think they are (or whether they are as powerful as I and every other serious user of the language knows them to be).
If it weren't for that pesky Citizen's United decision by the Supreme Court the establishment media could be more even-handed and fair.
You on the left have lost your sense of proportion. Trump says “My crowd size was bigger than Obama’s” and you call it a LIE! According to your neo-Puritan standards, if a husband tells his wife she doesn’t look fat in a dress that makes her look fat, that is a LIE! When you watch a TV ad claiming four-hour erections, that is a LIE!
Let me show you what a real lie looks like: If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. One sixth of our GDP hanged on that whopper.
I agree with Althouse times a thousand!
The funniest part about "Trump lies!" is the realization that Hillary Clinton was the alternative.
It's actually fairly simple. If the MSM went after Obama, Clinton, or any Dem as aggressively as they attack Trump, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Ok, let me try to spell it out more clearly – the only fact reported by this story is that Trump visited Al Asad. Everything else, while possibly true in and of itself, was semi-relevant or irrelevant material and opinion added and slanted so as to put Trump into a bad light. The best liars (and the WaPo has much experience!) don't tell lies, they just curate their facts very, very carefully.
Wiki:
"Brackish water condition commonly occurs when fresh water meets seawater. In fact, the most extensive brackish water habitats worldwide are estuaries, where a river meets the sea. The River Thames flowing through London is a classic river estuary."
John: Care to read it again?
I'm more interested in why some people are so selectively exercised over some pols' political b.s., and serenely indifferent (or gullible) to that of other pols.
In the case of Trump, the sensitivity is not merely selective (a bias that afflicts us all), but several steps beyond hysterical. Is Trump-talk full of b.s.? Yes. More full of b.s. and outright lies than other pols (including other presidents)? No. *That* is why the infantile MSM drumbeat of "Drumpf is a liar!" ("Liar liar liar liar the biggest liar ever, a lying liar absolutely unprecedented in the history of our nation IMPEACH HIM FOR BESMIRCHING THIS NOBLE OFFICE WITH HIS LIES") earns the contempt of intelligent people whose moral faculties have developed normally.
Why, for example, is Baghdad shrouded in secrecy?
Cuz Baghdad got a new shroud for Christmas! But don't tell anyone.
"I'll just add that I can barely read the news these days (and I absolutely cannot watch it on TV). The negativity toward Trump is so relentless, cluttering up everything. It's crying wolf times a thousand. If anything is worth taking seriously, I'm afraid I won't be able to notice."
Now ask the question: why do they do it? The question is not about the MSM serving up propaganda and mobilizing against Trump--that was to be expected. What is new, as you suggest, is the sheer relentlessness cluttering up everything. Why?
Following the Universal Theory of Progressive Instrumentalism, I humbly suggest it is part of scorching the earth--in fact, it is the scorching itself: to degrade all media, to dominate all public discourse, to alienate any non-prog, to make the whole culture a no-go zone. Trump is the trigger, of course, but not the cause or motive.
What's to be done? As long as nice retirees and liberal women clutch their pearls, lament the cluttering, and don't draw a line, nothing at all. Even if they do draw such a line, for example by not watching and even reading as in AA's case, not much can be done as long as the MSM serve their core niche and rich lefties continue funding prog hegemony.
The media only lies because the President does it.
Also it will be up to the media to determine when the President lies.
One of the little over-the-air networks is going to start showing reruns of Joan Rivers' s talk show from 25 years ago. Their promo includes her telling guest Trump that he should run for office. This is our monster?
Washington, D.C., news radio station WTOP and its online headline: "Trump finally hews to ritual of meeting troops in harm’s way"
The "Get Trump" Squad is quite active and spirited. They won the House! Agent Robert Mueller will soon be arresting him at the White House! He will be perp-walked across the Rose Garden!
Any day now!
I said, any day now!
Let me repeat - ANY DAY NOW!
And, then after the arrest, he will be impeached! Trump Tower meeting! Russian trolls on Facebook sowing discord!
Any day now!
And then - like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz- we will discover it was all just a bad dream. The bad man with Orange hair will no longer be grabbing our collective pussies!
Of course, for most everyone but the clinically insane, we just carry on and enjoy the winter. Skiing, hiking, drinking hot toddys at the lodge, watching the College Bowl games, and chuckling at the political scene.
victory over the Islamic State that his own Pentagon and State Department days earlier said remained incomplete.
You call that a fact. It's not. The Pentagon and The State Dept. are entities, they do not speak. This "fact" has no who. 'Incomplete' is a weasel word that is always right, or always wrong, depending an your preferred narrative. As President, he is the CIC of the Pentagon, and CEO of the State Dept. I say the President of the United States would be the default spokes person. Including that bit of opinion dumps sentence into the chamber pot of opinion. It's inclusion into the story is narrative advancement. 'Shrouded' is a play to emotions. Fact based would read, if the fact needed to be included at all,(it doesn't')The President's trip into a combat zone was classified, as all past Presidential visits into combat zones have been.
Now ask the question: why do they do it?
Because people buy it. There is a market for what the Post sells. One can speculate on the worldview of these consumers. I would say one adjective that describes them is unthinking.
The negativity toward Trump is so relentless, cluttering up everything.
The only way out is not to reward the media by voting for a Democrat or a boring third party candidate.
The only way out is more Trump.
Althouse wrote: I'll just add that I can barely read the news these days (and I absolutely cannot watch it on TV).
I proved yesterday that I don't watch or listen to the MSM regarding Trump because I was surprised at how people pronounced Mueller's name. My familiarity with German had me thinking it was more Muler than Muller.
"There's nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." The raw data of experience is confusing and contradictory. The events of the day are mostly indifferent to our hopes and, sometimes, those events are actively hostile to our comfort and well being. Thank God we have the press to help us make sense of it all.
MadisonMan said...Because people buy it. There is a market for what the Post sells. One can speculate on the worldview of these consumers. I would say one adjective that describes them is unthinking.
But they must buy it using the currency of clicks. I can't imagine that the Post has enough paid subscribers to underwrite such a team of unthinking buffoons. Maybe Bezos is underwriting the whole thing. In which case he should be hounded by other, hungrier new sources.
John, wars don't end on armistice day.
Two Paragraphs in question
President Trump touched down Wednesday in Iraq in his first visit to a conflict zone as commander in chief, a week after announcing a victory over the Islamic State that his own Pentagon and State Department days earlier said remained incomplete.
The president’s visit to Al Asad Air Base west of Baghdad, which was shrouded in secrecy, follows months of public pressure for him to spend time with troops deployed to conflicts in the Middle East and punctuates the biggest week of turmoil the Pentagon has faced during his presidency.
Here are the two paragraphs without the opinions and weasel words to try to sway OPINION
President Trump touched down Wednesday in Iraq in his first visit to a conflict zone as commander in chief,
The president visited Al Asad Air Base west of Baghdad.
News reporting is not, nor should it be, an exercise in creative writing.
Dissected Paragraphs below..
President Trump touched down Wednesday in Iraq in his first visit to a conflict zone as commander in chief (Fact..I assume),
a week after announcing a victory over the Islamic State that his own Pentagon and State Department days earlier said remained incomplete. (Perhaps a fact that the two parties said this, however, there are no quotes of the actual statements or announcements. Just "SAID". This part of the sentence is completely unnecessary to the factual report of the visit. Make a separate OPINION piece on how you FEEL about the statements).
The president’s visit to Al Asad Air Base west of Baghdad, which was shrouded in secrecy (Most Presidential visits to foreign based military arenas are not publically announced before the fact. This is normal procedure to protect the safety of the President. NORMAL. The use of the ominous shrouded and secrecy words are to try to make people feel that there is something underhanded going on. There isn't. It is NORMAL)
follows months of public pressure (Really. Pressure by whom? Who is this public that the media speaks about? Months? Some substantiation would make this a fact. There is none in the article. As it stands it sounds like an assertion of opinion.)
for him to spend time with troops deployed to conflicts in the Middle East (Now they are just trying to insulate that Trump doesn't care about the poor "deployed" troops in "combat" zones....oh boo hoo the troops as if the media actually gives a shit about those redneck deporables ...yep...that WAS my opinion)
and punctuates (Ooooh there is a powerful word. PUNCTUATES. Baaam. Wham... drive the point home
the biggest week of turmoil the Pentagon has faced during his presidency. (Really. the BIGGEST!!! HUGE!!!! Compared to what? This is OPINION. What other Turmoils!!! another punch it up word that is meant to convey something ominous)
I was surprised at how people pronounced Mueller's name.
Wait -- what? It's not pronounced Mule - er?
I'm going on three months off Twitter and I rarely watch any news on TV at all these days, as well. I was in a motel last week in which CNN was the default channel on the TV. I reflexively turned the channel several times then I left it on out of curiosity once. The word for the day was "chaos." The host said it several times in the two minutes I watched and she tried to get Leon Panetta to agree with her that the Trump administration was the most chaotic in history. I truly believe that the corrupt press is the biggest problem we have in this country today. If the American people were presented with objective facts then we would, more times than not, make better decisions about leaders and policy etc.
Trump is Hero for bringing his plastic wife for the troops.
I proved yesterday that I don't watch or listen to the MSM regarding Trump because I was surprised at how people pronounced Mueller's name.
#metoo! Except not yesterday.
My familiarity with German had me thinking it was more Muler than Muller.
#metoo! Except for the opposite reason.
I would say one adjective that describes them is unthinking.
“NPC” describes that mentality quite succinctly.
Wait -- what? It's not pronounced Mule - er?
No, Fuck - hed.
John said...So they should just let the constant stream of lies go?
Paco Wové replied: Well it would be nice if the press stopped lying, yes.
But seriously – that excerpt contained only 1 actual fact; that Trump visited Afghanistan. All the rest of it was editorializing and propaganda.
__________________
My theory is that Trump caught them off guard in this instance. They had no reporter in Iraq to report anything so they made shit up.
Though a computer “manning” NPC's in a video game might allot more mentality to them than the human NPC's we love and adore display.
@MadisonMan: Cf. the video yesterday starring the "top heavy" Tara Strong.
I assume the “Trump is _____” (crazy, evil, erratic, etc.) sells ( its lasted for 2 plus years). Furthermore I assume it gets eyeballs and clicks for those who oppose him AND from some who support him.
Brackish water is surface water, not ground water.
Ground water near the ocean is often brackish. Are there no limits to your idiocy?
https://water.usgs.gov/ogw/gwrp/brackishgw/brackish.html
We watched NBC Nightly News last night likely for the first time this year. I already saw mentions of their Christmas article about Trump not visiting the troops during the Christmas season, only then to have to report Trump was actually in a war zone with the troops on Christmas. We can all remember the discussion of "poor me" Trump all alone in the White House on Christmas, except he was really on Air Force One. Anyway, NBC couldn't just jettison their previous story, so after talking about Trump being in Iraq, it went on about how previous Presidents visited troops, during Christmas, earlier in their tenure than he did. Except for Obama and W, it was still in their 3rd year of their Presidency, so it wasn't earlier, and all three of them have met with troops outside of the Christmas period. It was all pointless hullabaloo.
Care to speculate why 100% of the MSM and the DC insiders in both Parties continually find ways to attack Trump? It is not for what he is doing for the USA which gets an A. It must be to discredit him for when the Day comes that the aforesaid MSM and DC insiders of both parities are exposed by the intelligence Trump has had in his hands proving they are all criminals who sold out the USA for cash payments from the enemies of the USA. Hmmm.
I understand that the print media is in serious decline (my family was caught up in that in the mid 1970's). Good reporting is now outsourced to foreign media. You'd think the press would be a bit more sympathetic to their fellow Americans being caught up in outsourcing. But no, they double down in resentment and stupidity. Trump is right when he notes that the press started this vendetta against him long, long before he entered the WH.
Ah -- I didn't watch that video.
I will assume that Mueller puts the Mule in his name, like any good person of German descent.
More full of b.s. and outright lies than other pols (including other presidents)? No.
The volume is great and it's more brazen. He has lied about things he's said on Twitter the day before.
Ann's reaction is the same as mine. I largely withdrew from consuming regular news coverage more than a year ago. It's clear that...
1) Trump has driven many in the MSM utterly batty. They simply can't countenance anything he says/does/tweets -- no matter how anodyne (though little is) -- and their coverage has turned into a continuous, sustained, outright assault. And...
2) Everything is about Trump, without exception. If aliens landed on the mall tomorrow, we'd see dozens of op-eds opining that it's a result of the inter-galactic community's growing disgust with America's totalitarian, fascist president and they've finally decided that something must be done if order is to be restored in this solar system.
No doubt the Kristol/Rubin/Boot TDS types have these stories already written, just waiting for the landing to eventually take place.
John is just burnishing his scientific creds.
MadisonMan said...Ah -- I didn't watch that video.
I hear you. The video is worth a leer.
@John "The Trump as liar meme
Are you arguing that he doesn’t tend to lie a lot?"
Are you arguing Hillary doesn't lie?
Well, I'm just glad she and the whole DNC lied about the primaries. What makes it especially sweet is that she didnt lie to me, she lied to you.
Trump's approval rating is roughly three times that of the media. What's that tell you?
On a slightly off topic subject, Conservative Treehouse has a post this morning about how the media is inflating last year's holiday sales so that this year's increase doesn't look so big.
As someone noted yesterday: Howard's blow-up doll resembles Rachel Maddow. He dresses her in drab as well.
Trump's presence looms so large in the minds of his enemies, by which I mean those idiots that have declared themselves enemies to all things Trump: Democrats, journolisters, CNN personnel, former rabid Neocon Nevertrumpers who now oppose not just Trump but also conservative ideas (which both predate and have absolutely nothing to do with Trump as Chuck will concur I'm sure). He is living rent-free in every Progressive's medulla to the extent that I am now convinced that post-term he will revert to being a Democrat and they will claim all his accomplishments as their own. Then we will see history do another 180 (or Mobius loop if you will) as Trump is morphed by the DNC-Media machine into the second coming of Harry S Truman.
Because you KNOW all along, if Trump had run as a "D" and was governing as the Democrat that he was (and will be again) then all the Hitler references you hear would been "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" references. It would all have been:
"Sure he's crude but that's what America needs."
"Sure he's pugilistic but did you see the way he got China to drop car tariffs from 40% to 15%? Give 'em Hell Donny!"
"Too crude? Hell no! He's talking to Congress the way we ALL would if we had the chance (and the gold plated brass balls)."
"These Generals need someone like Donny from Queens to to tell 'em who's boss. It's called 'Civilian Command' for a reason!"
Try it yourselves. Take any classic Trumanism and replace Harry with Donny and see if it works. Or take a criticism of Trump, invert it and it applies to Truman. I'm filing for a patent on this analogy.
"The volume is great and it's more brazen"
Ok. So Trump lies in a way that bothers you, while (e.g., Obama or either Clinton) lie in ways that do not bother you.
I see the differences between them as differences in style, but not kind.
The vitriol of many in the media only reduces those with integrity to suspected minions blindly promoting propaganda. I'd think those wanting credibility would condemn the actions of those destroying their profession.
So Trump lies in a way that bothers you, while (e.g., Obama or either Clinton) lie in ways that do not bother you.
Again it's a matter of volume.
Are you arguing Hillary doesn't lie?
Hillary who? The lady who lost? Why would she matter anymore?
Because you KNOW all along, if Trump had run as a "D" and was governing as the Democrat that he was (and will be again) then all the Hitler references you hear would been "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" references.
And if Trump was a D and doing exactly the same things with exactly the same policies the folks here would be hysterical. It's all about team red or team blue here.
How dare he try to tax what I buy from China?!? The government has not right to tell me what I can buy and from whom.
One actual fact
No, Trump said we had achieved victory over Isis and the Pentagon said we hadn’t. Both are facts.
Do you need direct quotes from Trump and the Pentagon spokesperson?
Are you counting the Christmas Day airstrikes we made against ISIS's last hideout in your analysis above?
Contrast with a WaPo story about Obama in 2014:
"BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan — President Obama arrived in Afghanistan on Sunday for an unannounced visit to mark Memorial Day with U.S. troops, now in the final months of America’s longest war, and to begin final discussions over the size of the U.S. force that will remain beyond the end of the year.
Inside a cavernous hangar with a tennis-court-size American flag as a backdrop, Obama told a raucous audience of about 3,000 U.S. troops that the American public “stands in awe of you,” grateful for their service and united in support of veterans as they return home."
The tone of the WaPo Articles tell all. Unannounced vs. shrouded in secrecy -- of course no president announced these trips, for security reasons. The second paragraph shows the president in a patriotic setting with excited troops, and quotes Obama's words. There is no mention of Obama's unpopular policies that tied the hands of troops or other criticism. Many people felt draw down would be a disaster, including Obama's advisors, but it isn't mentioned.
Considering the 24/7/365 overwhelmingly negative (95% according to a Harvard study) stories by both the print & tv outlets in the MSM about Trump I'm absolutely amazed that Trumps ratings aren't deep in the <200 range rather than where they actually currently are...imagine if the economy were ACTUALLY in the dumps...well MY GOD!!
In a way I blame the readership.
I can only assume that the NYT is giving its readers what they want, a journalist's nitwit opinions interjected into a news article. You can go other places if you just want facts I guess. It's pretty clear to me that the NYTs readership really need their various biases confirmed, they need to be coddled and spoon fed carefully curated stories with opinions presented as facts. They can't trouble their pretty little heads with reality.
Obviously if their readership actually wanted hard, honest reporting, the NYT would either have to actually report facts minus opinions or they would go out of business.
"It's all about team red or team blue here."
Well, you seem to be doing your part.
I stopped watching most forms of TV news in March 2008 when the media went all in on protecting Obama after it came out he had attended Jeremiah Wright's Church of Hate for 20 years.
John How dare he try to tax what I buy from China?!? The government has not right to tell me what I can buy and from whom.
LOL
I assume you are completely opposed to Obamacare then?
Are you arguing that he doesn’t tend to lie a lot?
Yes I am, at least in context of Presidents and their acquaintance with the truth. You guys said the same thing about Bush, but now Trump is "unique"? I don't think so. Y'all just choose what to emphasize or ignore depending on your hatred level of Trump. He certainly, in my opinion which is like many others', doesn't lie any more or any more consequentially than Obama did. I'll give you one beautiful example of why few here share your hysteria:
You people have gone nuts since Trump said his inauguration had more viewers "in person and around the world" than Obama did. Except you liars cut off the phrase before the "and" and then spent days laughing about how the photos of the mall "disproved" Trump's "lie" about the crowd. So it was all straw men on fire, not pants. That dishonesty coupled with the gall to call Trump's statement "false" set the table for what we have now.
But all the same people pointing the liar finger at Trump conveniently forget "If you like your doctor" and the several hundred lies Obama told about the ACA (and which has a lie embedded within the damned name of the act!). Then all the lies he told about doctors cutting off limbs to save insurance companies money and lies about "red pills and blue pills." Obama's whole life story was a lie, and you want us to believe things are worse now? We haven't even touched on the pair of "congenital liars" (per William Safire) that grifted their way through eight years in the White House.
"But but Trump lies!" Yeah, a little introspection would do you and your side some good about now. Maybe you should contemplate how this corrupt media covers lies for some pols and not others. That should make you more angry than anything Trump has to say.
I assume you are completely opposed to Obamacare then?
No, I'm still waiting for Trump's plan to cover everyone much better at much lower cost.
Blogger John said...
No, Trump said we had achieved victory over Isis and the Pentagon said we hadn’t. Both are facts.
Do you need direct quotes from Trump and the Pentagon spokesperson?
I think we do need the actual quotes from both.
My understanding is that President Trump said we had achieved victory.
My understanding is also that the Pentagon had said we had not achieved "total victory"
Seems like both facts are correct.
ISIS is pretty well defeated, though they still have a few stragglers but not enough to have to worry too much about. A nuisance. Sounds like "victory" to me.
ISIS still has a few stragglers. If you were trying to justify a budget or forces, as the Pentagon may be trying to do, sounds like it is not "total" victory.
So, yeah. Let's see the quotes and see if I am right.
John Henry
You people have gone nuts since Trump said his inauguration had more viewers "in person and around the world" than Obama did. Except you liars cut off the phrase before the "and" and then spent days laughing about how the photos of the mall "disproved" Trump's "lie" about the crowd. So it was all straw men on fire, not pants.
Really? That's what you're going with? You really are the Baghdad Bob of Trump supporters.
Oh oh!!! Can you defend Trumps plan to cover everyone much better at much lower cost? I can't wait to hear that one.
No, I'm still waiting for Trump's plan to cover everyone much better at much lower cost.
Congress is responsible for ACA. And is responsible for repealing and replacing. OR whatever.
Perhaps a refresher from School House Rock on how a Bill is created?
Scott Adams pointed out the other day that President Trump may be the greatest "peace" president in 200 years. Not complete yet but he is on track to end US involvement in 5 ongoing wars:
Korean War is the biggie. Many a slip twixt cup and lip but it seems to be going well. You would not know that from CNN, of course.
Yemen
Afghanistan
Syria
and I forget the other one.
He has also moved the Middle East closer to peace than it has been for 5-6,000 years.
He won't get a Nobel Peace Prize, of course. OTOH, if offered, he would be right to refuse it. It has been tarnished for all time by it's award to President Obama.
John Henry
Trump is bombastic.
Obama flat-out lied about something that affected every single American. He claimed Obamacare would be cheaper and we could keep the plans we liked. Our privately purchased health insurance for a family of five, one of whom has a a pre-existing condition was about $700/mo pre-Obamacare. My kids are off our plan now, and my husband and I will pay about $1500/mo as a couple this year for a very inferior plan. Deductibles are about 9X what they were on the old plan.
So, why do Trump's lies bother you so much more than Obama's? Is it because Trump is a vulgar boor, and Obama had that nice crease in his pants? Is it because he's more transparent in his hyperbole and falsehoods? See, personally that looks like you are more easily taken in by appearances and aren't concentrating on what is being done (or not).
I read John McPhee's book on writing "Draft #4" last week. As with everything he writes, it was excellent. Great stories about the technical aspects of writing and about the New Yorker. Available at the portal.
Of course, I am a JM fanboi and would rave about a list of recipes by him. I also learned some interesting and helpful stuff about commas, apostrophe's and the difference between "farther" and "further". I think the book will make me a better writer.
Relevant to these comments was the chapter on fact checking as done as the New Yorker. (McPhee has been a staff writer there since the 60's) It was quite a process and they had quite a fact checking operation. It would go to the ends of the earth, literally, to verify tiny details in stories.
I doubt that any newspaper could ever do anything like this. Lack of time if nothing else. Lack of money in any but the biggest operations.
It seems like in recent years they don't even try.
John Henry
Way OT:
In Draft #4 McPhee explains what it means to be a "Staff Writer" at the New Yorker. He is essentially a free lancer with office space.
He gets no regular salary, only expenses, sometimes in advance, and payment for articles published.
John Henry
So the Washington Post reported that Trump visited the troops in Iraq...
...And Trump *did* visit the troops in Iraq...
...And the conservative press is complaining about liberal bias???
The Post accurately reports Trump visited Iraq, and they get attacked for it. What the hell does the press have to do to not be accused of liberal bias? Lie? It seems Republicans at present like people who lie (i.e. Trump).
(Is visiting Iraq a bad thing, in conservative eyes? If not, why do they think that it being reported that Trump visited Iraq reflects poorly on him?)
The enemedia has shot off its feet up to and including the navel area. It shoots off its mouth somewhat differently.
After 8 yrs of kissing the ass of the far less visble Obama, and looking the other way when he did shit the bed (because racism etc), the press has has a lot of adversarial energy to expend...and they are less likely to be spied on.
Blogger M Jordan said...
One sixth of our GDP hanged on that whopper.
Speaking of copy editing, "hanged" or "hung"
Hung as in "and thereon hung a tale"? closet?
Or hanged as in Sam Hall said "Damn your eyes" just before he was hanged?
Either one would be correct in your context. I was wondering which you had in mind?
John Henry
Ann said: "The negativity toward Trump is so relentless, cluttering up everything. It's crying wolf times a thousand."
Ann states the obvious. Angry progressives disagree.
Congress is responsible for ACA. And is responsible for repealing and replacing. OR whatever.
That really has nothing to do with Trumps amazing plan to cover everyone much better for much less money. He said he had a plan. Where is the plan?
"The Post accurately reports Trump visited Iraq, and they get attacked for it."
Didn't read the post or the comments, eh? Or you did, saw that they clearly and repeatedly pointed out their reasons for dissatisfaction, and decided to pretend they weren't there.
That really has nothing to do with Trumps amazing plan to cover everyone much better for much less money. He said he had a plan. Where is the plan?
Perhaps he has taken a page from Nancy Pelosi's playbook.
We must pass the bill to see what is in it. Congress better get on that.
Sad that a law professor who spent a career reading advocacy prose finds it impossible to get through a daily newspaper in retirement.
Readering -
can you at least try to address the actual content of Althouse's post?
So the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board notes that Trump’s attacks on the press have sometimes been “contemptible.” They’re right about that; but you might never know it reading the Althouse blog.
The Journal editors say that they quit reading after the first two paragraphs of the Post story. So they missed these two paragraphs:
In his speech to troops, Trump criticized their commanders, saying they had failed to meet the deadlines he set for withdrawal from Syria and other nations. “The men and women that serve are entitled to clear objectives and the confidence that when those objectives are met they can come home and be with their families,” he said.
The president also told a number of falsehoods to the troops during his speech. He said that he had given the troops a 10 percent pay raise and that the forces had not received a pay raise in more than 10 years. The sizable pay raise Trump authorized earlier this year, however, amounted to 2.6 percent, not 10 percent, and troops have received a pay raise every year for decades.
They're 'The Resistance'. You know, all of those urban/suburban women who don't own guns.
… a link from Cookie that supported his claim of pollution caused by fracking.
What about fracking pollution, indeed? But, well, there's “pollution” … then there's pollution — and ultimately there's (OMG!) POLLUTION!!
It's timely for you and Cook to bring up this particular aspect of hydraulic fracturing (or fracking as it's known for short) — to wit: groundwater pollution — because a) America, the U.S., is finally starting to pull itself free from the dark cloud of stupendous oil imports from unsavory regions of the world, which has hung over this country for the last half century (see this graph!); while b) I've only just been poring over the EPA's recent (2016) monumental, 1,288-page (91 MB of pdf files!) study of just that: fracking's now-legendary potentiality for contaminating groundwater. Final publication of the study occurred just two years ago, on 2016-12-13 — promulgated, one might note, just as the Obama administration was shortly about to leave office.
So what are the results of this (last pre-Trumpian) EPA study?
Before dipping into the document, one might note that since it was Obama's EPA that put it together, one can with quiet certitude be confident that those EPA scientists would just have loved, loved, loved! to full-throatedly condemn fracking, if there had really been any science at all to back them up in such a conclusion, but… there wasn't, and isn't.
Indeed, as one learns from the provided FAQ, the (2015) draft version of the study did indicate a conclusion, albeit a negative one: “We did not find evidence that these [fracking] mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.”
After criticism from peer reviewers, as EPA notes in the FAQ, they took out that sentence — as being unsupported by the data. Without it, as becomes clear in reviewing the study's remaining final conclusions — except for the raw, definitive but unquantitative conclusion that fracking can under certain circumstances pollute groundwater, there's really little that's solid left in it at all.
Indeed, the EPA's biggest conclusion appears to be: “continue supporting us — we'll get better over time!” While no doubt that's so, for now it's pretty unsatisfactory.
Even if, however (as a result of that now-deleted sentence), one cannot conclude that “We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States” (in other words, one can't conclude positively for fracking) — still it's also quite clear that there is _no_ (or very little) evidence for “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States” as a result of fracking (which would have been negative for fracking) — or it would have been mentioned in the EPA study, as being worthy of precisely the opposite conclusion from the deleted sentence.
{Continued on the next page: page 2}
{Continued from the previous page: page 2}
It's appropriate now segueing back to the first of the three kinds of “pollution” mentioned above.
By placing “pollution” in quotes I meant in this case the public's perception of the sort of pollution that fracking supposedly does — but which as it happens it really doesn't do at all.
The public believes — due to a lot of deceptive (“fake news”) reporting — along with a vague perception that fracking works by injecting fluids (99.9% water) into the zone being “fracked” (which is true) — that there's danger, as a result, of the fluids injected at any given site thereupon filtering up through the rocks, more or less directly and easily, into public groundwater supplies lying above.
As I say: no it doesn't. It's really a matter of public innumeracy; people simply don't comprehend the radically different altitudes below ground at which these events take place, together with multiple qualitatively diverse geological layers — formations — lying in between, separating them.
Fracking normally operates at levels thousands of feet below any aquifers that feed into public water supplies — typically, also, with at least hundreds of feet of impermeable rock formations lying between. Fracking liquids deposited down there simply can't get up to groundwater levels.
Nor, as we see in the EPA's monumental study that we're discussing, do they find injected fluids, properly delivered to in-situ fracking sites, contaminating groundwater above such locales.
So, if in-situ injected fracking fluids aren't found to pollute groundwater as a systemic problem, just how does (how do they find that) fracking sometimes contaminate(s) water supplies?
As one might imagine — knowing that deep injection pollution just ain't-a-happenin' — looking over the EPA study's list of the ways that fracking liquids can get into water supplies: It's things that occur (as a result of sloppy or negligent techniques, employed) at or near the surface that can create problems.
Fracking fluids stored in unlined pits, for instance (I love that one!) — where chemicals can simply seep down into groundwater — or defective pipe segment(s) erroneously installed around a descending drillshaft.
Proper care, private and government regulation, together with appropriate penalties ought to minimize the rate at which any such accidents or negligence occur. Given the EPA report's complete failure to quantize the situation, however, it appears that water pollution as a result of fracking mishaps is not currently happening at a significant rate.
Certainly nothing that would justify the BAN IT!! hysteria continually pouring forth from anti-fracking activists. Especially considering the formidable economic — not to speak of geopolitical — benefits that we're reaping as a result of employing fracking technology. Look at that graph of rising then dramatically falling U.S. oil imports again!
{Continued on the next page: page 3}
{Continued from the previous page: page 3}
Beyond that, though, we've only been talking thus far about the first two — the “pollution” vis-à-vis pollution — in the triad of pollution types I mentioned at top. What about the third and last of these: the “(OMG!) POLLUTION!!” aspect of things?
For many years now, climate change (nee global warming) aficionados — if I may use such a term with regard to them — have declared that climate change/global warming is the issue of our age, that unless we take immediate action to reduce carbon dioxide emission levels, an “extinction level event” which may lead not only to mass extinction amongst the biosphere — but humanity itself is likely to get swept up in the general death which is to come.
(I shan't address global warming/climate change per se any further in this posting — a topic for another day.)
But… presuming that the activists in this regard are right: that reducing emissions of CO2 — especially fossil-fuel derived CO2 — from modern civilization is of extreme, ultra-time-pressing importance right now — then it's critical to note that it is precisely as a result of fracking that it is America (despite Trump's rejection of the recent Paris climate accords) whose CO2 emissions are presently declining significantly — while nations like France and Germany (despite their embrace of Paris) whose CO2 emissions are nonetheless ramping up.
This seemingly contraintuitive result is nevertheless so. Oil and natural gas derived from fracking contain less carbon per unit heat (BTU's or Joules) produced than… — thus fracking is now saving carbon in the U.S. that would otherwise be going up multitudinous chimneys as CO2 due to the consumption of… — coal.
The fact is, therefore, that America's fracking revolution is effectively substantially reducing (the very worst and most dangerous kind of — OMG!) POLLUTION!! in the world (as well as also reducing more mundane coal-burning — and coal mining — pollution).
Is this (the former) ultra important (as constantly alleged) or not?
Oh oh!!! Can you defend Trumps plan to cover everyone much better at much lower cost? I can't wait to hear that one.
Did he promise that if we liked our doctor, we could keep our doctor? That if we liked our plan, we could keep our plan?
Fracking is reducing coal burning, which is responsible for most of the mercury that goes into the environment. There are something like two ounces of mercury in every ton of coal. But fracking, per Robert’s link, is “potentially” not perfect. Well the alternative of burning coal is certainly not perfect.
Sounds like you folks are suffering from Press Derangement Syndrome. Nothing negative must ever be reported in the Cultists’ minds. Trump’s repetitive mantra, “The Press is the enemy of the People” has taken roost in your brains apparently.
Michael McNeil
Dude!
John said...
Really? That's what you're going with? You really are the Baghdad Bob of Trump supporters.
I chose that example specifically, for the following reasons, none of which puts me in company with Baghdad Bob, although I am curious why you would choose that analogy:
1. What Trump said is indisputably true, due exclusively to the growth of the Internet. The online audience doubled since 2012 when Obama was last inaugurated. That alone makes it a larger audience "in person AND AROUND THE WORLD" as Trump said.
2. The example is apt because the DNC-Media relentlessly repeated half of Trump's quote (and let's be fair and say that half a truth is a lie too when it elides the facts) like this: "More people saw my inauguration." But they then took the bastardized quote, known as a straw man in classical debate, and beat it to death with photos of 2012 and 2016 side by side and crafted conspiracy theories about Trump photographers photoshopping people in and still "coming up short" as the meme went. So they example really reflects poorly on The Media for their lies in various disguise.
3. Go ahead John, show me where the "lie" is in this sentence: More people in-person and around the world saw Trump's 2016 inauguration than any prior presidential inauguration.
The press is a tool. It is owned by a very small and wealthy group of people.
They want there serfs back.
There are always enemies of freedom like Obama and Hillary and their supporters.
The globalists are losing elections all over the world. The press which they own and the idiots like Inga and John hate the little people. All they have is hate.
They will not let their serfs go free.
They are mad that wars are ending. They will start a world war soon as a pretense.
Oof. Why would anyone who was familiar with this comment section get into a war of words with Madison Man?
In other news:
http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/27/bombshell-khashoggi-foreign-governments-influence-agent/
The President's Xmas visit to Bagdhad was the perfect ending to a perfect year. That is why he is so loved by the American people. He is one of us.
I rarely admit to this, but at the top of my closet sits a cardboard tube with a J-School degree in it, and with every passing news day I want to shred that g-damn thing to bits.
Has anybody read the WSJ news story on Trump’s visit? It is posted at WSJ.com here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-first-lady-travel-to-visit-u-s-troops-in-iraq-11545852536
There is a slight difference in tone from the Rucker-written story at WaPo. The first two paragraphs of each story are an interesting contrast. But then the Journal’s story carries on in very much the same terms as the Washington Post’s story. I got something of undeniable information benefit from each of them. Indeed, I could probably flip paragraphs from each story interchangeably. Are you guys mad about the Post, or the actual news?
I will say that in my past correspondence with Althouse, I repeatedly asked why she so often blogged stories from the New York Times, when she seemed so highly critical of the Times’ errors and excesses. I suggested to her that she get herself a Journal subscription as I have.
It now seems, in late-stage Trump, she’s coming around to the WSJ view.
Did he promise that if we liked our doctor, we could keep our doctor? That if we liked our plan, we could keep our plan?
If it was wrong when Obama did it, can you admit it was wrong when Trump did it?
The journal is as bad on the news side of things, they use much the same separate sources as the post and the times (ie Devlin barrett re strzok)
Strassel and Holman Jenkins have tried to see past the shadows on the cave.
LLR Chuck still attempting to recover from his Pelosi Love/Competence comeuppance.
LOL
John Said "If it was wrong when Obama did it, can you admit it was wrong when Trump did it?"
Nothing Trump has done ruined my health insurance coverage, made me play doc shuffle, or cost me more money. Trump may still have a plan, if it gets implemented we can talk. I am glad my resources are enough to pay the premiums and copays. I didn't go to a doctor once last year, my husband had a minor knee scope, and a check up. Our health premiums plus out of pocket was $28K. The cut-off for an Obamacare subsidy for a couple is pre-tax income of $62K. I cannot imagine what we would have done if we were at that income level. Obamacare screws the middle class.
The press acts like a dumped girlfriend. Maybe they want grabbed by the pussy, but maybe he's just not into you.
Inga: "rump’s repetitive mantra, “The Press is the enemy of the People” has taken roost in your brains apparently."
LOL
Inga goes full "I can see Russia from my house!" Lefty/LLR fake news again!
Trump has repeatedly said the Fake Press and/or Fake News is the enemy of the people.
But the media, knowing 2 things (that phrase doesn't set up the lefty/LLR narrative sufficiently AND that the automatons like Inga will believe anything they are told (see: Russia hoax dossier)), simply substituted in their own language.
Again.
As always.
Hence, this blog posting.
Lifelong Cuck once again going with the lefty narrative, what a surprise.
The aptly named "John" shelling out for the prostitutes in the media. Maybe you and Chuck can get a room.
Cunts.
John: Oh oh!!! Can you defend Trumps plan to cover everyone much better at much lower cost? I can't wait to hear that one.
But there's nobody here claiming that Trump, like all other pols, doesn't lie or bullshit. The counter-examples of Obama's bullshit are *obviously* meant to illustrate the irrational selective outrage of the msm (and people like you). Can you point out anyone here who claims that Trump possesses the unique-among-pols quality of not lying and bullshitting? No, you can't, because there isn't anybody here who's ever made that claim.
So the question remains: Since Trump differs from other public figures only in style, not in quantity or quality of political dishonesty...what's up with your irrational selective outrage?
In fact removing the mandate and some structural changes through HUD, expanded choice and lowered premiums.
President-Mom-Jeans: "Lifelong Cuck once again going with the lefty narrative, what a surprise."
I have made note of 3 specific events that most triggered our LLR Chuck:
1) Hillary's loss (go back and read Chuck's posts prior to the election, all jovial and good natured...until Hillary lost...then a decided turn which was quite....revealing). Who can forget Chuck's many attacks on Barron Trump and his hilarious turn to openly racist posting against Trump minority cabinet members? Not me!
2) Trump's exposure of Durbin's immigration idiocy and hack-i-tude. Chuck did not like that one little bit and over the edge he went in defending Dick "US troops are gestapo" Durbin
3) Trump's exposure of Nancy (schooled schooled SCHOOLED!) in not knowing her rear end from a hole in the ground regarding whether or not there were sufficient votes in the House to pass wall funding. This one really set Chuck off as well.
Needless to say LLR Chuck maintains a constant #CNNMSNBCAreTerrific level of vitriol, always aligned with the left, but those 3 events above are of particular note.
John said;
Ground water near the ocean is often brackish. Are there no limits to your idiocy?
Nice link. The link, AND your statement again proves my point. Pay attention. Ground water comes to the SURFACE, at times near the ocean. You prove my point. The GROUND WATER, does not arrive brackish, it becomes brackish. Because the GROUND WATER meets surface ocean salt water in shallow estuaries and become subject to evaporation. The evaporation concentrates the solids=brackish. Same thing happens out west. Water is the reason some areas can be grazed and some can't. Brackish water.
Name calling is always a good way to show how earnest you are in debating the facts. I said there is no shame in ignorance. It is the human condition. Every human is ignorant of more than they are informed of. Stupidity. Now there is the rub. I have informed you. Your response points the fact that while you were ignorant of ground water parameters, unable to digest the information given you, pushes you toward the stupid end of the spectrum. Those that cant learn.
The left is full of people like you that don't know anything, but, argue your ignorance with great dedication. Give up on the ground water thing, you cant play the game. Hell you couldn't identify it if you saw it.
Blogger Inga...Allie Oop said...
Trump’s repetitive mantra, “The Press is the enemy of the People”
Can you link to any footage or tweet in which he has said this? Not a reporter saying that he has said it, something that is actually him saying it?
What he has always been careful to say is that "fake news", not the press or media in general, is the enemy of the people.
Even in denying that he has ever said this, which he has done in several interviews and speeches that I have heard, he is always very careful not to use the phrase "The press (or media) is the enemy of the people" because he knows it will be taken out of context.
I call more Inga bullshit here.
John Henry
Darkisland: "What he has always been careful to say is that "fake news", not the press or media in general, is the enemy of the people."
Who can forget how LLR Chuck used the lefty/LLR/MSM made up Palin talking point to denigrate her?
LLR Chuck is no different in either style, content, tone or accuracy than our very own lefty lunatic Inga.
BTW Inga, aren't you glad the Womens March, which you praised repeatedly, has just started, just now, literally, to address the obvious, rampant, repeated, undeniable anti-semitism across its top ranks?
And for those who don't know, Inga asserts that the father of her children is jewish, which makes Inga's continuous defense of islamic radicals, anti-semitic leaders on the left, and obfuscation regarding the clear Left-Islamic Supremacist alliance even more noteworthy.
The GROUND WATER, does not arrive brackish,
Yes, it does. First rule of holes my boy. Stop digging. Just admit you're wrong. Ground water is often contaminated with high levels of salt either from sea water infiltration or from underground salt deposits. It's no different from people who need a water softening system due to high mineral content - iron, calcium, etc.
Drago,
It's simply an undocumented insult.
And Comey thinks "it could be true".
Words themselves don't really matter..unless they're "dog whistles".
Yes Chuck, Trump should have said it was the biggest pay increase in 9 years.
https://taskandpurpose.com/trump-military-pay-raise/
President Trump's remarks to the troops mentioned a big pay raise he got for the troops. On the surface it seems that is a wee bit of hyperbole. Often, the President's remarks set of the left into a frenzy of self righteousness. But in all of those screeds delivered, they are forced to amplify facts that make them look stupid, foolish, or crooked. While I don't know what the President was getting at. I do have a lot of facts now, from the left, Screaming about how bad our troops have been paid in the past. A subject the media will never to an expose on. This is something the President seems to do instinctively, forcing his foes into magnifying how bad the current, or past is.
If you do sales, you understand the tactic. The media, not knowing how much they don't know, have not picked up President Trumps book, The Art of the Deal. Must of his actions are explained there.
Howard?... he'd like to claim Moe, yet demonstrates Shemp.
Sounds like you folks are suffering from Press Derangement Syndrome. Nothing negative must ever be reported in the Cultists’ minds.
For somebody who claims to be able to read minds, you sure get a lot of stuff wrong. But maybe there are these “Cultists” somewhere for whom that is true.
LLR Chuck made a lot of ignorant statements about Palin, which is a sure tell that he gets his “news” from the distaff trough of hog slop.
Who... what... when... where... are all an inteligecer needs. Most older folks can figure out why. Althouse... you only catch flak when over the target. Your trolls are plentiful, but are small caliber.
iowan2 wrote:
This is something the President seems to do instinctively, forcing his foes into magnifying how bad the current, or past is.
From CNN.com:
"In fact, military pay has increased every year for more than three decades. It was raised 2.4% in 2018 and then 2.6% in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. The 2.6% pay raise is the largest in the past 9 years. "
It's no different from people who need a water softening system due to high mineral content - iron, calcium, etc.
Haa haaa haaa! Stop, please stop. I got tears in my eyes from laughing so hard.
Water softeners (they use salt) do not re-mediate brackish water. The difference between solids dissolved in ground water and brackish surface water is like the difference between an orange and a whorehouse. You have not a clue about the subject. Keep going, you shine a light on your own stupidity with every post. (you slid through ignorance so fast, nobody noticed you there.)
Wells Fargo examined the stock-market downturns that have occurred since 1950 and found three instances in which the sell-off then resembled the sell-off now.
The S&P 500 posted declines of 20% or more during the strong economies of 1962, 1966, and 1987.
After each of these instances, the bank found, the stock market posted new highs within two years — without a recession.
"The sample size is obviously small, and the world today is very different from the 1960s and 1987," strategist Pravit Chintawongvanich told clients. "But these are useful historical examples showing that the market can correct when the economy is strong, without portending a recession."
FYI
Ironically, this Althouse post illustrates why everything is about Trump.
I suspect that by midnight, this post will attract 400 or more comments.
Isn't it time to replace "anti-semitism" with "judophobia" to parallel -islamophobia- in discussions?
Given style and content of such discussion.
John said
Ground water is often contaminated with high levels of salt either from sea water infiltration or from underground salt deposits.
Now John has just declared all of the planets salt water=brackish. I have never heard the Great Salt Lake, or the Dead Sea, called brackish. Because people that aren't stupid, know the difference between the brackish water and the Dead Sea
“If it was wrong when Obama did it, can you admit it was wrong when Trump did it?”
If you didn’t express outrage when Obama did it, can you understand why no one takes your outrage seriously when Trump did it?
Thank you Cracker. But don’t expect them to understand your point. They are incapable of it, it’s science.
Notice he says “IF” it was wrong when Obama did it, then demands we “admit” it is wrong when Trump does it.
Why not say “Look, it was wrong when Obama did it....”
Because you still can’t admit that Obama had a serious problem with the truth on important matters.
I don't like jumping into threads that pile up too many comments to read, but I want to point out that the phrasing "victory over the Islamic State that his own Pentagon and State Department days earlier said remained incomplete" is a constructed lie. The construction "Trump's own XXX" is used as an intensifier to indicate that Trump must be really wrong about something if his "own" people or institutions oppose him. No objective observer can believe that the Justice Department is under the control of Trump, yet headlines like the following appear in papers as if the department was staffed and led by members of his own family:
Trump attacks his own 'deep state' Justice Department
Trump’s own Justice Department reprimands his conspiracy theorizing
Jeff Sessions Is Betraying His Own DOJ
'A total witch hunt': Trump tweets blistering early morning attack on his own Justice Department and says 'attorney-client privilege is dead' after the FBI raids his lawyer's office for Stormy Daniels hush money files
Trump trolls his own Justice Department — again
Donald Trump opposes his own Justice Department on Arizona DACA driver's-license ban
Or “I admit it was wrong when Obama did it, why can’t you admit..”
Of course we would just say “If you weren’t outraged then, why should we believe you now?” as Cracker pointed out.
Syria is not Iraq is not Ukraine is not Libya etc.
Opinions will differ whether America should remain in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Niger, Somalia, etc., but there will be no vacuum in Syria, where Saudis, Jordanians, Israelies will cooperate with Syria and Russia to secure the ground and prevent the progress of a refugee crisis and terrorist state.
Ironically, this Althouse post illustrates why everything is about Trump.
I suspect that by midnight, this post will attract 400 or more comments.
Yet not all the comments are all about Trump. I commented on grammar, for example.
When Obama orders a drone strike on an American citizen, with all of the attendant collateral damage, crickets
When the Saudis kill a Saudi citizen on Saudi soil who was a paid operative of a state at war with them, and who placed his paid propaganda in the Wa Po, Trump’s a monster!
Obama was separating families, nobody cares...
We can go on and on. The only lefty around here who seems to have any principles is Robert Cook, but he throws away his vote every two years.
I'll just add that I can barely read the news these days (and I absolutely cannot watch it on TV).
*************
This reader here has often wondered how you can stand it. I stopped watching TV news around 2000. Got tired of being yelled at. Reading the news is getting even worse. I stick with The Economist for reading...so far. No bylines removes the 'pundit cult' and there is something about the journal's staid British style (with a touch of dry humor) that is so much more agreeable than NYT etc...
Yet not all the comments are all about Trump. I commented on grammar, for example.
Most of mine have been about a willfully, and proud of it, ignorant media.
Trump corrupts everything, especially his enemies.
Obama didn't have much to do with the ACA, which was confected by the House Democrats with guidance from the Insurance and Pharma industries. It's probable that he had no idea whether he was lying or not. His position was similar to that of the piano player in the whorehouse, who didn't know what was going on upstairs.
We are supposed to be outraged at Trump’s consensual sexual escapades
We are supposed to ignore rape, harassment, and sexual assault by Clinton.
When Trump does it, it’s an outrage! If we bring up a Democrat like Bob Menendez, D-NJ, it’s “Whataboutism”
Read here long enough and you will begin to get a clue why we ignore the press’s pearl clutching about Trump.
All except Chuck of course, who takes it in with the innocence of a back country trout swallowing an artificial fly.
The MSM Trump hatred has been off the charts for 3 years now. For several reasons:
1) The Establishment wants to discourage any future Trump-clones. Go against the Uni-party and stand against Globalism and Open borders and we'll go through your personal life with a fine tooth comb and attack you 24/7.
2) The MSM attacks ALL Republican Presidents. However, these attacks are usually restrained by Corporate Republicans and the DC elite. In Trump's case, the Republican establishment and billionare's like the Koch brothers and Paul Singer are quietly encouraging the attacks.
3) Under Bush - Conservative Inc. (WSJ, NR, W/S, etc.) would defend Bush. With Trump its different. They either refuse to defend trump or do so feebly or without enthusiasm. Some are "never trumpers" who attack Trump even viciously than the liberals.
4) Trump has to fight alone. How often do Republican Senators publically support him? Where are the R's on the TV talk shows standing with Trump on Border Security or renegotiating the bad trade deals? There are a few, but most of the 50 R Senators are AWOL. Same with Ryan and the Hourse leadership.
Trump has really opened my eyes to what the Republican establishment *really* cares about.
They are completely in the pocket of the billionaire donors and the Chamber of Commerce. Cheap labor, tax cuts for the rich, Globalism, that's all they care about. Everything else was just "boob bait" to the get the Republicans elected.
Meanwhile, almost everyone at national review, Red state, and the weekly standard, has outed themselves as #fakecons. Social conservatism, Judges, patriotism? Who cares. All that matters is wars in the middle east and tax cuts.
Blogger John said...
" So Trump lies in a way that bothers you, while (e.g., Obama or either Clinton) lie in ways that do not bother you.
Again it's a matter of volume."
And see. I look for intended result. While previous administrations lied to be believed, Trump is more of the -exaggerate for the publicity-type. More Madison Ave. than pol.
It is what he doesn't lie about that is important.
What I find endearing is that when he does the Kansas City shuffle guys like you fall for it EVERY time. It never gets old.
Where I live now 100 feet can mean the difference between fresh and salt water coming up from a drilled well. And we're nowhere near the ocean. I have a 15 ft dug well and don't have to worry about that particular issue.
Well location also determines whether you have sulfur water, high iron, hardness level, and lots of other things. Two wells a few hundred feet apart drilled to the same depth may have entirely different water profiles. There's a few areas where the underground hydrology is well known, and drilling down X feet will put you in a known good water vein. Where I live isn't one of those areas. I was informed when I moved here that I should hire a water witch if I wanted to drill a well. They have a better track record in the area than hydrologists. If I were to build anew, I'd need to drill a well. Dug wells no longer qualify as a water source for a certificate of occupancy, no matter how good the water.
I know a few people with technically drinkable salty water from their wells. Usually with some sulfur thrown in for good measure. They drink bottled water, use a laundromat, and don't own dishwashers.
So they should just let the constant stream of lies go? Not bring it up? Or maybe Trump could stop lying - how about that? - John
Read the post again. Read the first two paragraphs selected from the WP.
It's not about lies. It's about a bullshit narrative that idiots like you treat as the truth.
Rats, DSL is down, on dialup which doesn't work with modern web pages. So it's MSM news for me.
Spent 2 hours on hold for Centurylink without getting through.
I hope that President Trump puts the Saudi’s in charge of his press relations.
Jim Acosta really deserves a visit to the Saudi consulate.
I remember when Obama's claims of victory were accepted without question.
Trump is Hero for bringing his plastic wife for the troops.
Jealousy is never a good look, Howard.
So they should just let the constant stream of lies go? Not bring it up? Or maybe Trump could stop lying - how about that? - John
They could apply the same rules to both parties, how about that? They could ask Bill Clinton some hard questions, or even, saints presarve us! Hillary, just like they do Trump. They could have made fun of the ridiculous shit that Obama did all of the time. They could have asked him hard questions...
Since they chose not to do any of that, I can’t get upset that you guys don’t like Trump’s style. I have no real problem with the way they are treating Trump, except that they don’t treat Democrats the same.
I am trying to think of a Trump lie which represented a real betrayal of his voters, like the “If you like your plan...” lie did to Obama’s.
No, I'm still waiting for Trump's plan to cover everyone much better at much lower cost.
Why didn't Obama already take care of that?
Why must Trump do it better?
You're a perfect combination of asshole and idiot, John. Be proud.
(eaglebeak)
Was it John or Craig who put all those extra "e's" in "Sheesh"?
@John
"Same with NYC and their reservoirs in the Adarondacs"
I don't think that is correct. Their water may come from the mountains, just not those particular mountains. I do not think that is the current spelling either. Tim would know.
Gospace said...Dug wells no longer qualify as a water source for a certificate of occupancy, no matter how good the water.
--
WTF?
@John The government has not right to tell me what I can buy and from whom.
Good God!!! Did you ever try to buy a gun in New York State??
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন