On Sep 11 anniversary AOC compared the 9/11 terrorists to the 01/06 insurrectionists…

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Ancalagon, Sep 13, 2021.

  1. Demiurge

    Demiurge Goodbye and Hello, as always.

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,222
    Ratings:
    +14,630
    Agreed. :D Though Dicky was funny, as is his wont.

    But he's hardly the first person to object, and some far more seriously, when the debate forum is used for... debate. LOL

    Guess they just aren't used to it. It is normally partisan name calling. :D
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Lanzman

    Lanzman Vast, Cool and Unsympathetic Formerly Important

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    33,812
    Location:
    Someplace high and cold
    Ratings:
    +34,287
    Trump is an aberration in terms of American Presidents, but in the broader sense he's a perfectly normal example of a populist pedagogue. People like him are littered thru history. They pop up, do horrendous damage, and are later reviled or mocked by future generations.
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  3. We Are Borg

    We Are Borg Don't be a dick about the things you don't like

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    17,826
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +26,649
    Yeah... no.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  4. MikeH92467

    MikeH92467 RadioNinja

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    10,081
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    Ratings:
    +14,932
    Which brings me back to George W. Bush's pearl-clutching over the coarsening of American politics. Jamelle Bouie has a brilliant (paywalled) op-ed piece in the New York Times that spells it right out.

    Bush was an active participant in the politics he now bemoans.

    In 2002, Bush said that the Senate, then controlled by Democrats, was “not interested in the security of the American people.” In 2004, he made his opposition to same-sex marriage a centerpiece of his campaign, weaponizing anti-gay prejudice to mobilize his conservative supporters. Ahead of the 2006 midterm elections, he denounced the Democratic Party as “soft” on terrorism and unable to defend the United States.

    And this is to say nothing of his allies in the conservative media, who treated disagreement over his wars and counterterrorism policies as tantamount to treason. Nor did his Republican Party hesitate to smear critics as disloyal or worse. “Some people are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists,” stated the Republican National Committee’s first ad of the 2004 presidential election.

    Bush was noteworthy for the partisanship of his White House and the ruthlessness of his political tactics, for using the politics of fear to pound his opponents into submission. For turning, as he put it on Saturday, “every disagreement into an argument, and every argument into a clash of cultures.”
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  5. Demiurge

    Demiurge Goodbye and Hello, as always.

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,222
    Ratings:
    +14,630
    While I agree with most of that sentiment, there is one very pertinent exception. Objective analysis can never justify the behavior of those who act irrationally. It can indeed explain and understand it, as you just did eloquently. Yes, they aren't motivated by reason.

    I don't find them particularly frustrating when engaging with, because my point whenever I engage them is not to change their mind. As the maxim goes, you can't reason someone away from a position they didn't reason themselves into.

    When I do comment on MAGAs online, the point isn't to win the argument. The argument is won prior to any engagement, and objective analysis shows they simply don't care.

    It's to point out to anyone that witnesses such an exchange that there is no reason in their argument.

    And to oppose such irrationalism in the pursuit of the attack on logic, reason, expertise, knowledge, and even the tenents that they claim to hold dear, such as the core of our Constitution and our republic.

    Because such actions demand opposition, in every sphere of life.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Demiurge

    Demiurge Goodbye and Hello, as always.

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,222
    Ratings:
    +14,630
    And on the other side of this, we may have 1/6 failing thanks to excellent advice by... Dan Quayle.
    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/woodward-book-trump-nuclear/index.html

    Even though Pence stood up to Trump in the end, "Peril" reveals that after four years of abject loyalty, he struggled with the decision. Woodward and Costa write that Pence reached out to Dan Quayle, who had been the vice president to George H.W. Bush, seeking his advice.
    Over and over, Pence asked if there was anything he could do.
    "Mike, you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away," Quayle told him.
    Pence pressed again.
    "You don't know the position I'm in," he said, according to the authors.
    "I do know the position you're in," Quayle responded. "I also know what the law is. You listen to the parliamentarian. That's all you do. You have no power."
    • popcorn popcorn x 4
  7. T.R

    T.R Don't Care

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,246
    Ratings:
    +9,111
    You could say the same for every politician in washington. :shrug:

    And the New York Times is one to talk....

    List of controversies involving The New York Times

    And that is just a few from the list. They have been willing collaborators in this arena for years.
  8. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    11,557
    Ratings:
    +6,612
    Good thing that when Pence came looking for advice, Quayle wasn't a couch potatoe. :)
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    11,557
    Ratings:
    +6,612
    Maybe I'm romanticizing things, but I think that historically many politicians, right, left and center, could have a disagreement about policy and even political philosophy/ideology without acting as though the other side represented an imminent, existential threat to our way of life, democracy, etc. That there was room for negotiation and compromise. I think in general, the Democrats have not been about winning at all costs, or what one could reasonably describe as "ruthless" for the last 20 years.

    A. There's a difference between what one NYT op-ed writer says and what the NYT says.

    B. This list of controversies has little to nothing to do with the NYT being in any way the equivalent of what the op-ed writer accuses conservative media of. Almost none of these controversies involved the NYT (or even its reporters or opinion writers) acting as though right-wingers in their various disagreements had committed treason or anything similar.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. MikeH92467

    MikeH92467 RadioNinja

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    10,081
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    Ratings:
    +14,932
    Right wingers over the last couple of years have committed treason at various levels in and out of government. Of course, that's my opinion, not what the NYT is saying. It's worth remembering that a newspaper speaks with a number of different voices: The (hopefully) dispassionate straight news articles, unsigned editorials that speak for the newspaper itself. There are also regular columnists who are meant to present their opinions under their own byline and then there are the op-ed pieces, often written by non-employees of the paper who are supposed to bring outside points of view. Sometimes it's hard to keep them all straight.
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2021
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. Shirogayne

    Shirogayne 1/06 Was An Inside Job Formerly Important

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    40,764
    Location:
    San Diego
    Ratings:
    +51,142
    If anything, Dems have been too lackadaisical about everything: about Bush's win, about the potential for Hilary to lose, about the absolute batshittery coming from the right to destroy the counter. Rev. Wright's chickens have come home to roost this past year.
    • Sad Sad x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. tafkats

    tafkats That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, bingo! Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    21,360
    Location:
    Sunnydale
    Ratings:
    +38,112
    Can't these both be true? The Republican party is a dangerous organization with a lot of terrible people in it, but Trump is also a uniquely shitty excuse for a human being even by their standards?
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Shirogayne

    Shirogayne 1/06 Was An Inside Job Formerly Important

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    40,764
    Location:
    San Diego
    Ratings:
    +51,142
    ... ish? You strip away the rabid entitlement and naked criminality, are Trump's policies that much further right than Bush?

    It still says nothing good about the party that no one made an attempt to make sure he did not get on the ballot, though--instead, they all lined up to kiss the brass ring and enable the cruelty they assumed would be a career killer. In that regards, Rick is absolutely right that Trump wasn't unique in message, only in execution. We've seen the right rally to boot Liz Cheney from her positions in Congress. They can clean house and corral their own, bit they choose not to. :shrug:
    • Agree Agree x 4
  14. Demiurge

    Demiurge Goodbye and Hello, as always.

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,222
    Ratings:
    +14,630
    So besides the singular factors that make him the worst president of all time... you know, like the attempt to overthrow our democracy.

    Policy can be argued.

    Overt criminality and treason can't be.

    Leadership matters. Yes, the GOP are scum. But no other president has enabled his own followers in this way, to reject objective reality in its entirety. It's very likely that the cult of Qanon was initially created as a psyops campaign by one of Trump's cronies.

    If it wasn't, then Trump certainly adopted it because of his extraordinary narcissism. By Jan 6th, the person who almost certainly controls the cult now, Ron Watkins, was being brought in to challenge the election results and his father personally spread the message that Pence was a traitor and had to pay for his crimes, leading to people roaming the capitol looking to kill him - we know because they chanted it on camera.

    Right wing nut jobs prayed for Bush. They pray TO Trump. Yes, that's a big difference.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  15. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    11,557
    Ratings:
    +6,612
    Trump didn't really have policies in most areas beyond "I have a plan to fix _______, and trust me, I can solve ________ in no time at all." W was at least open to compromise and not labeling people who disagreed with him enemies of the people.

    I would say in some of the few areas that he did have quasi-policies like immigration, he was far more restrictive than W was. In judicial appointments, he was much more nakedly willing to say "I am going to appoint judges/justices with the end goal of ending Roe v. Wade" than W was, although I assume that W was probably just being cagier about not saying the quiet part out loud.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  16. T.R

    T.R Don't Care

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,246
    Ratings:
    +9,111
    You are VERY MUCH romanticizing things. Guess you never heard of LBJ's daisy ad



    There was a time when debates got so contested that politicians would have duels with each other eg: Aaron Burr vs Alexander Hamilton. Or just watch the movie LINCOLN as it does a great job of showing how congress worked back then. Today is actually tame in comparison.

    I grew up in the eighties and it's always been like this.

    Republicans: Democrats hate America!
    Democrats: Republicans are racist!

    Hasn't changed one bit. The only difference is we now have social media and can see it happening 24/7.


    :lmao:

    1.)Brett Kavanaugh says high.
    2.) Democrats once did a video of Republicans literally pushing an old woman off a cliff in describing their stance on health care.
    3.) Our current President once told a group of black people that Republicans wanted to put them back in chains.

    Give me a break dude. Democrats are just as ruthless, they merely use different tactics.


    Their "opinion" writers all slant the same way, so not really much difference.

    What? The paper has been caught red handed printing smear articles based on lies, and taking sides on issues regardless of the evidence provided. And it's all to the benefit of one party. It is very much in the spirit of what they accuse Bush of.
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2021
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 2
    • Fantasy World Fantasy World x 1
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
  17. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    11,557
    Ratings:
    +6,612
    That there were politicians who did scorched earth does not take away from the notion that "many politicians, right, left and center, could have a disagreement...without acting as though the other side represented an imminent, existential threat to our way of life."

    I think that people put forth Reagan/Tipp O'Neill as an example of how people could have very different political philosophies but have respect for each other at the end of the day.

    In the realm of law, Justices Scalia and RBG could not be more different in their view of things, but they had respect for each other at the end of the day.

    I recall that a situation where someone at a McCain rally who trashed Obama as an untrustworthy Arab, McCain cut her off and defended Obama as a decent person with whom he had political differences.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...john-mccain-barack-obama-statement-2008-video

    I don't know if that would happen today, at least from the right.

    Like I don't see people in the post-Trump era saying AOC and the Squad (for example) are fundamentally good people and patriotic Americans who just are incorrect about how to best serve the country.

    As for Biden, he is an example of someone who was cool with a lot of people like Strom Thurmond and others on the right in a way that I don't think it would likely be the case for many in politics today.

    I am not saying most politicians were able to set aside their differences, but many started from a baseline of respect for the other side. (Which again, doesn't mean that they always respected everything that the other side did, or that there were not politicians who absolutely were of a scorched earth philosophy as a first, second and only reaction).

    None of the four examples you give were about "winning at all costs" or particularly ruthless. During the Bush years, there are very few things that Bush did that the Democrats opposed. The only thing that I can think of off the top of my head is the SCOTUS nomination of Harriet Miers. By comparison, there is pretty much nothing that passed in the Obama administration with widespread bipartisan support, and that doesn't look to change in the Biden administration. The Dems obviously didn't win on the Brett Kavanaugh nomination fight, nor did they fight all that hard. YMMV.

    They tend to have at least a staunch conservative writer on the payroll, a centrist conservative, etc. The current lineup has David Brooks and Ross Douhat. So there is a big difference on most issues between what those two might have to say and what Jamelle Bouie or Charles Blow might.

    Even if that were the case more broadly that the NYT has been "caught red handed printing smear articles based on lies, and taking sides on issues regardless of the evidence presented" to benefit the left, the list of controversies that you included didn't have examples of printing smear articles or taking sides on issues to benefit liberals/the Democrats.

    Taking the allegations of wrongdoing at face value (i.e. assuming the critics of the paper are right about the underlying facts):

    Judith Miller's reporting repeating conservative sources that Saddam had WMDs, if anything, is the opposite. The controversy was about her allegedly swallowing conservative propaganda.

    Poor reporting on the Duke lacrosse rape scandal was not a right/left thing or intended to benefit Democrats/disadvantage Republicans.

    The decision to run a poor ad from a liberal group bears no reflection on the objectivity/fairness of the reporting or opinion sides of the paper. And even to the extent one wanted to use it as an example of bias, it's pretty weak tea. If a conservative group put up the money to take a full page ad out to slam a liberal person or group, generally speaking, the NYT would probably have taken it, all things being equal. (In fairness, the paper had to admit that it should have charged MoveOn more and that the ad seemingly violated its policy on not accepting ads that could be seen as personal attacks. So perhaps it would not accept an ad that took aim at a specific person in the same way.).

    The only one of the controversies that were listed that even comes close to speaking to possible bias in favor of the left is the reporting of a possible McCain affair. And it's ludicrous to think that was done as an anti-conservative/Republican hatchet job when the NYT and the news media in general has covered umpteen such allegations of affairs by all sorts of Democratic politicians as well.
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. matthunter

    matthunter Ice Bear

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    21,153
    Location:
    Bottom of the bearstack, top of the world
    Ratings:
    +31,697
    Plus, that story ran during the 2008 Republican Presidential Primaries so equally likely (if not moreso) to have been sold to the NYT by one of his opponents or their lackeys. Remember the "black daughter" shit? The GOP had it in for McCain just as much as anyone.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. T.R

    T.R Don't Care

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,246
    Ratings:
    +9,111
    We're not talking about Supreme Court justices getting along, we're talking about politicians. You said that historically they usually got along which isn't even close to being true. If you're going to change your argument to "SOME always got along," then that's still the case now. There are 535 members of congress, many of whom get along. You just don't hear about them because ..
    a.) they're not in powerful positions
    b.) news about politicians getting along doesn't make for juicy headlines.

    You're looking at that era through nostalgia glasses. I remember that election year very well. That was a rare election moment, near the end when he knew he was about to lose mind you, in a very nasty campaign. The majority of that cycle was Dems trashing Palin and Republicans raising questions about Obama's birth certificate. Plus nastiness such as this....



    Ditto for the other side. I don't see Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid going out of their way to say complimentary things about Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or anyone that fundamentally disagrees with them so...your point again?

    He was cool towards them because that was what helped him politically. Hence the big turnaround on bussing and other decisions he had made back in the 70s.


    :dayton: Whatever dude, Only a true partisan would read that and say "nothing to see here."

    Need to think harder. His drug bill, embryonic stem cell research, social security, and once Dems took back control of congress, bipartisanship was ended. They didn't even put up a fight to save his immigration bill which had a pathway to citizenship because it was more politically advantageous to let the bill die and hand Bush a defeat.

    We have a very different concept of "fighting hard." Personally I think that smearing someone as a rapist when you have no evidence to support it is just to stop them from becoming SCOTUS is about as low as it gets. But to each his own.

    You're also skipping the Trump years and the wasted witch hunts that turned up nothing.


    :flow:

    Are you daft? That article about the McCain affair that never happened came up during the election. It was very much about trying to help the democrats. And the other examples show a clear left wing bias.
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2021
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Fantasy World Fantasy World x 1
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 1
  20. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    90,001
    Ratings:
    +62,095
    Reading a TR post is like reading The Bible.

    A bunch of meandering boring shit for a long stretch, then all of a sudden a two sentence paragraph that jumps out and goes
    "HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! I'm a maniac!!!!!! IIII'm aaaa maaaniaaaaacc!!!! :discuss:".

    ...and then right back to the boring shit like it never happened.
    :wtf: :chris:
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  21. MikeH92467

    MikeH92467 RadioNinja

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    10,081
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    Ratings:
    +14,932
    It is interesting that those who accuse the media of left wing bias can never accept any other explanation other than deliberate misfeasance. Of course, right-wing outlets get a pass because...reasons.....
    • Agree Agree x 3
  22. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    90,001
    Ratings:
    +62,095
    Yeah, the media that slobbered Reagan's knob for all 8 years, and beat the drum for both of the Bush wars is hippie-dippie as fuck.
    And them giving the Reagan and Bush Senior corpses a bedtime story and a kiss before they were lowered into the ground?
    Yeah, that sure was some commie subversive stuff there.
    :dayton:
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  23. MikeH92467

    MikeH92467 RadioNinja

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    10,081
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    Ratings:
    +14,932
    They never remember those parts.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. T.R

    T.R Don't Care

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,246
    Ratings:
    +9,111
    Whose giving right wing media a pass? And we're not talking about all media, just one very specific member of that media who are being total hypocrites. Are you saying that the New York Times doesn't have a left wing bias?
    • Fantasy World Fantasy World x 2
  25. MikeH92467

    MikeH92467 RadioNinja

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    10,081
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    Ratings:
    +14,932
    I'd rather talk to a wall.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  26. Tererun

    Tererun Troll princess and Magical Girl

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    28,018
    Location:
    Beyond the Silver Rainbow
    Ratings:
    +17,670
    The only way to win is not to play the game.
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
  27. Shirogayne

    Shirogayne 1/06 Was An Inside Job Formerly Important

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    40,764
    Location:
    San Diego
    Ratings:
    +51,142
    I gotta say that even while I was on the Tea Partier side of the line in those days, I would never have accused Obama of slinging poo for the sake of flinging shit. If he anything, we won specifically for the solutions he offered. Deservedly so.

    I will say it's always gross to thrown shade on candidates family members who are underage, be that nasty shit about Chelsea, the comments about Palin's daughter or the speculation about Baron being autistic. :shrug:
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    11,557
    Ratings:
    +6,612
    Even putting aside the notion that the justices are members of a branch of government and thus not substantially different from politicians beyond branding, the Ginsburg/Scalia thing could be understood as a metaphor.

    And sure, I imagine that there are people on the right who privately still have friendships with people on the left in the other two branches of government. But part of the point is that they take a public stance that it's not traitorous/monstrous etc to have an opposing view.

    Again, the fact that I'm sure McCain and Obama personally and their adherents were willing to trash each other doesn't take away from that there used to be people who would stand up and say they effectively opposed someone's views and programs but not the person. Perhaps I am wrong about how commonplace it was. But it did happen as the examples I referred to show. And it does not seem like those sorts of things, however common or rare they might have been, do or could happen in today's climate.

    I am not trying to say that Democrats are/were any better at seeing the humanity of their opponents. Indeed, the main examples I used were McCain and Reagan. My point is that in the past, there were examples of being willing to see the other side more as rivals who were misguided perhaps, but fundamentally patriotic, and now that is almost never the case.

    It doesn't matter so much to me whether he was cool with the other side because it was politically beneficial to him, because it was just part of his personality to try to see the good in unrepentant racists, or because of any other factors.

    The point is that he could put political differences aside and reach across the aisle -- and I would argue he was far from alone on this.


    There's a difference between arguably unfair political rhetoric and dog whistles and the sorts of political maneuvering that I would consider trying to win at all costs. There has not been the equivalent of a Democratic shutdown of the government, blocking of the Merrick Garland nomination. To be fair, I suppose there could be examples cited of a win-at-all-cost mentality by Democrats, but those particular things you cited aren't them.

    I should have been clearer. There are very few things that Bush did that Democrats unanimously or nearly unanimously opposed. I am fairly sure that on each of those things, he had some Democrats supporting him.

    Here, for example, is a story about how 10 Democrats in the Senate voted for the Medicare prescription drug pill (nine Republicans voted no).

    https://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/08/elec04.medicare/

    As for immigration reform, it looks like Harry Reid was among the supporters of the bill in the Senate, and it was opposed by at least some Republicans.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

    Not to relitigate the Kavanaugh issue, but the word of his accuser may not be credible, but it is certainly not "no evidence."

    They didn't attempt to leverage the political machinery they had at their disposal to delay the nomination, to require investigation of other aspects of the claims against him, to call attention to his temperament as displayed during the hearings being unfitting for a judge, they didn't raise the ethics violations angles raised elsewhere. I cannot imagine that if things were flipped and a Republican minority was asked to evaluate a liberal judge who had the exact same issues as Kavanaugh would not have done more.

    Well, I actually would say that the Trump years illustrate the notion that the Democrats aren't so much with the ruthless or the win-at-all-costs. Trump pretty objectively did the things that he was accused of in both impeachments, failed miserably in managing the pandemic, and almost certainly committed all sorts of malfeasance that we only know the tip of the iceberg of. And yet, the Democrats have let him dodge subpoenas and have let them stonewall them over and over. Compare/contrast their treatment of Trump with the Republicans' treatment of Clinton during Whitewater/Monicagate, and I don't think one can reasonably argue that the Democrats today are going for the throat in any way shape or form as hard as those Republicans were.

    I would also say that the so-called "witch hunts" in the Trump administration found a whole lot of witches. There were numerous convictions had and fines paid.

    A. The McCain affair article came up during the primary in February 2008, which as Matt pointed out suggests the possibility it was spread by a Republican rival's camp as opposed to help the Democrats.

    B. As I said, the Times print similar articles about affairs, sexual harassment and worse about politicians of all stripes -- it's part of the job description. Or was the coverage of all of Clinton's accusers, Al Franken's accusers, Andrew Cuomo's accusers, Anthony Weiner's controversy, etc. sinister plots to help the Democrats as well?

    C. I originally said that we were going to take the facts of the allegations that were being made against the Times in your examples as true. I do want to point out that the article itself does not accuse McCain of having an affair, but rather says that McCain's staffers were concerned that he was having an affair or that there would be the appearance of one/unethical behavior. The woman in questioned sued the Times for libel then dropped the suit for no money, only a note that said that the Times did not mean to state that there had been an affair or an unethical relationship.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1203656400&en=d0734db651c10475&ei=5087 &oref=slogin

    It may show left-wing bias to overemphasize the notion that the rich white jocks raped a poor black woman, but it is not showing that they are trying to help the Democrats or hurt Republicans. The acts of the ad side of a newspaper say absolutely nothing about the people who write news articles or opinion pieces. And Judith Miller's parroting what conservative sources told her about WMDs certainly does not show that the NYT is anti-conservative or pro-liberal (unless one alleges some next-level thinking like she knew the conservative sources were slinging bullshit, and she wanted to make them look bad by putting their bullshit front in center as truth and she was playing the long con and would eventually expose it as bullshit and discredit the conservative cause).
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  29. Bickendan

    Bickendan Custom Title Administrator Faceless Mook Writer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Messages:
    20,487
    Ratings:
    +21,352
    A stonewall? :chris:
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  30. MikeH92467

    MikeH92467 RadioNinja

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    10,081
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    Ratings:
    +14,932
    I’m sure the response will be the semantic equivalent of:lalala:
    • Agree Agree x 1