Politics

LioninVa
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Politics

Postby LioninVa » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:24 pm

My impression while watching the press conference was that he called the article in The Sun fake news. He did state that he said nice things about May, and that they recorded it but didn’t report on that. I don’t know if he was talking about CNN or The Sun at that point. Considering that I seriously doubt that he actually reads, he could have been bitching about the headline itself.

He also stated the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt (again) and damaging relations with Russia and Putin knowing indictments were forthcoming against Russians. Not a good look.

As for Strzok, it is possible to have personal opinions and not allow them to interfere with ones job. I am not saying I would sit down for a beer with this cat, but people put their bias aside every day. Our esteemed elected representative looked petty and foolish yesterday; both parties.

psu_dad
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:44 pm

How is acurately reporting his comments "fake news"? Nothing about it was fake.

Come on. This isn't your first time at the rodeo.

Many years ago, there was a MA state law passed (I forget the details) that some thought would have a bad impact on the local high-tech industry. A Boston newspaper reporter did a number of interviews with presidents of local high-tech companies, including the president of the company I was working for, who I'll call "AG" here. AG was a supporter of the law and (according to him) spent 29.5 minutes in his office with the reporter defending the law and 0.5 minutes conceding there was one aspect of it that might not be so great. When the article was printed, it was clear the reporter had a point of view going in, i.e, it was a bad law. And the only quote attributed to AG in the article came from that aforementioned 0.5 minutes of the interview.

AG was livid. :lol:

Was he quoted accurately? Yes. Was the reporting regarding his perspective, generally-speaking, "fake news"? Yes, of course. What you leave out of a story can impact it's accuracy just as much as what you put in.
Fire Alex Cora. (On hold pending further review)

psu_dad
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:57 pm

... it is possible to have personal opinions and not allow them to interfere with ones job.

Sure it is, but if Special Agent Pants-on-Fire expects people to believe his treatment of Mr Trump was unbiased, he probably shouldn't have sent the message he sent to his girlfriend (Special Agent Hot-to-Trot). When she asked if Mr. Trump was going to be elected, he could have responded "Gosh, Let's hope not" instead of "We'll stop it."

Big difference. Huge, actually.
Fire Alex Cora. (On hold pending further review)

LioninVa
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Politics

Postby LioninVa » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:02 pm

I don’t disagree, _dad. Do you really think one man saying we will stop it was anything more than trying to impress the girl? You are smart enough to know how things work.

psu_dad
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:32 pm

It doesn't matter what I think. I'm just suggesting that you can't make a statement like that and not expect it to bite you in the bum if it gets out. "Yes, I said it but I didn't really mean it. I was just trying to get laid." is probably not going to work.
Fire Alex Cora. (On hold pending further review)

LioninVa
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Politics

Postby LioninVa » Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:38 am

I am not arguing that, but it doesn’t make it any less probable. He was stupid, to say the least. Almost as stupid as those clowns questioning him - I mean, grandstanding in front of him - the other day. I suppose it’s a mistake to expect them to know better.

psu_dad
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:20 am

That's just the nature of politics. It's not science, where the pursuit of truth is everything (at least in theory). Politics isn't about truth. It's about perception. If your political opponent provides any evidence that allows you to create a negative perception of them, you hammer them over the head with it. Whether you actually believe the negative perception is irrelevant.

It's not an accident that there are very few scientists in Congress.

----------------------------

There was another recent story about an FBI agent who dropped his pistol while totally shit-faced and dancing in a club. Then he accidentally shot another patron in the foot while picking it up. Between him and the aforementioned Special Agent Pants-on-Fire, it hasn't been a good month for the FBI.
Fire Alex Cora. (On hold pending further review)

Blue&White
Posts: 2693
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:36 am

psu_dad wrote:Was he quoted accurately? Yes. Was the reporting regarding his perspective, generally-speaking, "fake news"? Yes, of course. What you leave out of a story can impact it's accuracy just as much as what you put in.


Except that, contrary to his complaints, The Sun article did include his positive comments about May. So, there's that. And, he's apparently since apologized to May for his comments. So, there's that, too.

It's not "fake news". He said these things. Why you feel the need to ignore facts to defend it is a mystery to me.
Alex Cora sucks. Mickey Callaway sucks. Baseball sucks. Everything and everyone just sucks. Is it football season yet?

psu_dad
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Sat Jul 14, 2018 11:03 am

Except that, contrary to his complaints, The Sun article did include his positive comments about May.

Right. One sentence: "Despite the withering criticism of Mrs May’s Brexit strategy, Trump insisted he still thinks she is “a very good person”. I don't see how any objective person can read that article (and inflammatory headline) and not see that the tenor of it was clearly: "Trump tears May a new one". But Trump claims he spent most of the interview saying nice things about her. Who knows (or cares, for that matter). Neither the media nor the POTUS are slaves to the truth.

And if you didn't understand my previous explanation of why a few facts do not necessarily make a story accurate, then so be it.
Fire Alex Cora. (On hold pending further review)

Blue&White
Posts: 2693
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:16 pm

And if you didn't understand my previous explanation of why a few facts do not necessarily make a story accurate, then so be it.

It's confusing, I admit. Maybe you can help me out a little, though.

The President of the United States gave an interview. In that interview, he complained about the Brexit negotiations, he said that he gave May advice and she didn't heed it, and he said that May's plan for Brexit would "probably kill" any potential trade deal with the U.S. by keeping Britain too closely aligned with the European Union. When asked about Boris Johnson, Trump basically endorsed him to take over as prime minister.

So, explain it to me - how is the fact that he called May a nice person and threw her a few platitudes changing the story here? How is coverage of his criticism of her and how she's handled Brexit, the threat of pulling a trade deal with the US, and his endorsement of her former cabinet minister as a Prime Minister of the UK "fake news" and not throwing in the nice things she said changing the context of the interview? Because, I really don't get that. That is the meat of what he said. What would be "fake news" would be a headline and a story about how he called her "a very good person". Seriously, who fucking cares? His commentary on her policies, her strategy and her country's future relationship with the United States is the story here. Not that he thinks she's a good person or respects her or whatever bullshit he threw out. How can you not see that? The Sun got the story exactly right. He just didn't like it.

Two other things here:
1. Trump didn't focus on what you are focusing on. What he objected to was the story that he criticized May at all. He called the idea that he was critical "fake news" and said the audio tape would vindicate him and the White House was going to release it. But, before his administration could figure out how to back out of that comment, the Sun issued a statement standing by every word they wrote AND released the entire audio tape of the interview. And - and you may want to sit down for this one before you read it - it proves that they were right and Trump lied about not criticizing May.

2. The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch. That's the same Rupert Murdoch who owns Trumps personal cheering section over at Faux News. I do not believe, for one minute, that a Murdoch owned publication set out to sand bag Trump while the rest of his empire focuses on telling everyone how his shit doesn't stink. I am pretty sure what happened here was they printed exactly what they thought Trump wanted to get out into the public, it very quickly backfired on Trump, and he thought he could pivot and blame the Sun and they would just take it. Only, they didn't. I guess someone over there found some level of integrity and decided not to be a punching bag for this asshole and pushed back. And, I bet he was convinced that would not happen. Oh well.
Alex Cora sucks. Mickey Callaway sucks. Baseball sucks. Everything and everyone just sucks. Is it football season yet?