Impeachment

[iu_a_att]

I was trying to say if Trump played by the rules and was a half way decent president we wouldn't feel so bad about losing to him.

This also is a response to those who contend the impeachment is due to us being bad losers with the impeachment inquiry being without merit.

All of us understand that people feel bad when things don't go their way. But if you, say, told me you just received a diagnosis of terminal cancer and I replied by saying "I know how you feel, I can't find an expensive pair of glasses" you would conclude that actually I am entirely lacking in empathy. Your analogy to sports is lacking empathy in this way.

In any event this is NOT how the Trumpers are responding to the feelings of the opposition. Instead they are responding like this:

Such people are only sorry to learn that you DON'T have terminal cancer. Their most fervent hope is that folks like you and I burn in everlasting hell. We might call them deplorable but I think a better word is malevolent.

And here is the crucial part...you and I don't reciprocate their feelings. We would be SORRY to learn they have terminal cancer. We DON'T fervently hope they will burn in everlasting hell. We are NOT malevolent towards them. Indeed, we think they are mostly pathetic individuals who are desperately seeking scapegoats for their own difficulties. We believe they are being manipulated and exploited by unscrupulous autocrats and oligarchs who really are sociopaths. And because they know we find them pathetic they hate us even more.

 

[UncleMark]

...he [Biden] is running is because he feels he must given the comments Trump made in favor of white nationalism with regards to the event in Charlottesville. Problem is that Biden is lying about what he said, as is the media, and people are falling for it.

Trump never literally said that all Mexicans are rapists, but CNN wants folks to believe this to be true.

LOL. When you can't argue the plain truth of the statements, you start parsing words.

Trump did not use the phrase "quid pro quo", so he didn't engage in one, right? Is that your position?

 

[Cortez88]

LOL. When you can't argue the plain truth of the statements, you start parsing words.

Trump did not use the phrase "quid pro quo", so he didn't engage in one, right? Is that your position?

Let’s be clear, until someone read the WB complaint to him, he had no idea what quid pro quo meant.

 

[UncleMark]

Let’s be clear, until someone read the WB complaint to him, he had no idea what quid pro quo meant.

So there couldn't have been one then, could there?

 

[Cortez88]

So there couldn't have been one then, could there?

You don’t have to know what sodomy means to accomplish the act.

 

[UncleMark]

You don’t have to know what sodomy means to accomplish the act.

NTTAWWT

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Mr. and Mrs. VPB?

 

[hoot1]

All of us understand that people feel bad when things don't go their way. But if you, say, told me you just received a diagnosis of terminal cancer and I replied by saying "I know how you feel, I can't find an expensive pair of glasses" you would conclude that actually I am entirely lacking in empathy. Your analogy to sports is lacking empathy in this way.

In any event this is NOT how the Trumpers are responding to the feelings of the opposition. Instead they are responding like this:

Such people are only sorry to learn that you DON'T have terminal cancer. Their most fervent hope is that folks like you and I burn in everlasting hell. We might call them deplorable but I think a better word is malevolent.

And here is the crucial part...you and I don't reciprocate their feelings. We would be SORRY to learn they have terminal cancer. We DON'T fervently hope they will burn in everlasting hell. We are NOT malevolent towards them. Indeed, we think they are mostly pathetic individuals who are desperately seeking scapegoats for their own difficulties. We believe they are being manipulated and exploited by unscrupulous autocrats and oligarchs who really are sociopaths. And because they know we find them pathetic they hate us even more.

Att, good critique.

In the future I have told myself to try harder to make it clear I am expressing my own feelings without assuming others think and feel the same way..

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

A lot of folks take the snippets they get from the media as fact. They don't read things in entirety to get the context. They quote what they've been told by the media, and the media is lying to them.
Joe Biden kicked off his presidential campaign last year with a very expensive video in which he advised the country that the entire reason he is running is because he feels he must given the comments Trump made in favor of white nationalism with regards to the event in Charlottesville. Problem is that Biden is lying about what he said, as is the media, and people are falling for it.
Trump never literally said that all Mexicans are rapists, but CNN wants folks to believe this to be true. Lazy because they refuse to do their own research. Lemmings.

Keep in mind, you’re dealing with people who still think the NYT’s and WAPO are in the news business.

 

[twenty02]

Keep in mind, you’re dealing with people who still think the NYT’s and WAPO are in the news business.

You must live in a very shallow world.

I pickup a paper copy of the NYTs or WaPo or WSJ (and yeah you didn't mention WSJ, but they deserve to be in there) literally every time I have the opportunity.

If I had more free time I would have them all delivered to my home every day and read them cover to cover (along with great news mags from both left and right).

The reporting they do is fabulous long form writing, and most of it has very little to do with politics in a direct sense. I literally never pick up one of them don't learn something new and interesting. It's really sad that people are so boxed into their little corners of their world that they are unable to digest content and come up with their own ideas.

 

[sglowrider]

You must live in a very shallow world.

I pickup a paper copy of the NYTs or WaPo or WSJ (and yeah you didn't mention WSJ, but they deserve to be in there) literally every time I have the opportunity.

If I had more free time I would have them all delivered to my home every day and read them cover to cover (along with great news mags from both left and right).

The reporting they do is fabulous long form writing, and most of it has very little to do with politics in a direct sense. I literally never pick up one of them don't learn something new and interesting. It's really sad that people are so boxed into their little corners of their world that they are unable to digest content and come up with their own ideas.

Keep in mind, you’re dealing with people who still think the NYT’s and WAPO are in the news business.

I guess we now know that we have come to that inflection point where opinions and evidence-based reporting are now indistinguishable. Nearly 180 Pulitzers between the two papers account for nothing.

Why bother anymore!!

 

[meridian]

Keep in mind, you’re dealing with people who still think the NYT’s and WAPO are in the news business.

You are absolutely right! they are nowhere near the quality of Indianapolis Star, National Enquirer, Breitbart News, and others you subscribe to.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Keep in mind, you’re dealing with people who still think the NYT’s and WAPO are in the news business.

and you're dealing with people who think they aren't, and think Trump's Twitter feed, Fox News, and Rush, eliminate the need for any other news sources..

that said, every source should be questioned, and getting a variety of sources with different takes lets one aggregate more info before trying to sort it out.

that said, keep open to the possibility that all sides are BSing you, and all have an impure agenda, since basically they all are and all do.

on a side note, the movie "The Post" is playing on Cinemax currently, and is a must see.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Keep in mind, you’re dealing with people who still think the NYT’s and WAPO are in the news business.

It’s hilarious and a bit frightening that people , particularly those with a degree, brag about being illiterate. Like reading real news is a bad thing. I know you think Breitbart, Fox, and others are the fair and balanced ones, but poll after poll will tell you that those that have no news source at all have a better grasp of the world and facts than those that watch Fox News. But go ahead and belittle the news sources that year after year,, break stories, win Pulitzer’s , and inform the world. Stay in your little bubble.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

You must live in a very shallow world.

I pickup a paper copy of the NYTs or WaPo or WSJ (and yeah you didn't mention WSJ, but they deserve to be in there) literally every time I have the opportunity.

If I had more free time I would have them all delivered to my home every day and read them cover to cover (along with great news mags from both left and right).

The reporting they do is fabulous long form writing, and most of it has very little to do with politics in a direct sense. I literally never pick up one of them don't learn something new and interesting. It's really sad that people are so boxed into their little corners of their world that they are unable to digest content and come up with their own ideas.

All news sources are far too biased these days. And yes, that includes Fox, which is just as bad or worse than the ones i mentioned.

I don’t subscribe to any papers any more. I mostly use the Google news aggregator, where I can get multiple sources.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

It’s hilarious and a bit frightening that people , particularly those with a degree, brag about being illiterate. Like reading real news is a bad thing. I know you think Breitbart, Fox, and others are the fair and balanced ones, but poll after poll will tell you that those that have no news source at all have a better grasp of the world and facts than those that watch Fox News. But go ahead and belittle the news sources that year after year,, break stories, win Pulitzer’s , and inform the world. Stay in your little bubble.

Lol.

I’d love to have a beer with you sometime, Zeke. I think we’d have far more in common than you’d think.

Of course, I’d have to find my way out of the woods, learn English, shave and shower, hitch up the wagon, and then find my way into town.

 

[Cortez88]

Here is article discussing the 2012 study. It is called the Fox effect. It establishes that Fox News is a disinformation organization. And that it does it’s job well.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/amp/

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Here’s an article on media bias and why they don’t deserve our trust.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna895471

 

[Cortez88]

Here’s an article on media bias and why they don’t deserve our trust.

“The Fox News effect is a correlation. It doesn’t prove that watching Fox News causes people to be ill-informed.”

So. There is a correlation between watching Fox News and being uninformed about what is actually happening in the world. That’s the point. It’s not a medical diagnosis where causation needs to be established.

 

[twenty02]

All news sources are far too biased these days. And yes, that includes Fox, which is just as bad or worse than the ones i mentioned.

I don’t subscribe to any papers any more. I mostly use the Google news aggregator, where I can get multiple sources.

The issue with those are you miss all the actual long-form pieces that these papers put out.... that's where there is actual depth and interesting topics that go beyond the headline news of the day.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

The issue with those are you miss all the actual long-form pieces that these papers put out.... that's where there is actual depth and interesting topics that go beyond the headline news of the day.

The Times is an outstanding publication in this way. I'm a long-time subscriber, and while I consume it digitally, I do read that long-form content. My preferred way to read the Times is on my iPad, as their layout approximates the paper version very well. In fact I bought the iPad specifically for reading newspapers.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So. There is a correlation between watching Fox News and being uninformed about what is actually happening in the world. That’s the point. It’s not a medical diagnosis where causation needs to be established.

The problem with Fox is not so much the news, though there are questions about it. The problem is people like Hannity, and the millions who consider him the be all.

 

[Stuffshot]

All news sources are far too biased these days. And yes, that includes Fox, which is just as bad or worse than the ones i mentioned.

I don’t subscribe to any papers any more. I mostly use the Google news aggregator, where I can get multiple sources.

Multiple sources of what?

 

[tooold4]

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

Hunter S. Thompson