NY Times editorial bombshell

[kellyb]

That is precisely why you shouldn't simply accept it as true. It's potentially a textbook example of confirmation bias. Without any way to independently verify that information, let alone a name of someone staking their reputation on it, it's not actually confirmation of anything. Your state of knowledge hasn't actually changed at all.

We do know that someone inside the administration is claiming it's true.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Those "Adults in the Room" are as responsible as parents who do their kid's homework, thus making it impossible for the teacher (voter) to find out that the pupil is failing in all subjects.

I'm leaning more and more towards Kelllyanne, because she seems to be the brightest of the bunch and possibly under the greatest stress (also personal) to let off steam.

 

[kellyb]

Primarily, yes. But you don't seriously think she thought the NYT was right to publish it, do you?

I think the author is cowardly, but I'm also glad the NTY published it.

So, yes, I seriously think that.

 

[kellyb]

I'm leaning more and more towards Kelllyanne, because she seems to be the brightest of the bunch and possibly under the greatest stress (also personal) to let off steam.

I think the letter's overall effect is harmful to the GOP, so I don't see her as being the one. She also doesn't hate Russia like the author.

eta:

I have a hard time seeing Kellyanna penning "it's the steady state, not the deep state" as well.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That is precisely why you shouldn't simply accept it as true. It's potentially a textbook example of confirmation bias. Without any way to independently verify that information, let alone a name of someone staking their reputation on it, it's not actually confirmation of anything. Your state of knowledge hasn't actually changed at all.

You never accept articles based on anonymous sources? You seem to be grasping at straws here.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Primarily, yes. But you don't seriously think she thought the NYT was right to publish it, do you?

What makes you think that? Desperation? The author you cited gets to point at the NYT for evidence of the enablers she hates.

 

[theprestige]

Come on- do you really think that the NY Times would have been so casual about confirming the identity of its author given the visibility of the Op-ed, its impact, and the inevitable rabid attempts to discredit it? They have extensive procedures to confirm even far less important stories/pieces and a large legal department to ensure that they do so properly.

Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time. Duranty’s prize-winning articles quoted not a single one – only Stalin, who forced farmers all over the Soviet Union into collective farms and sent those who resisted to concentration camps.

[...]

Some of Duranty’s editors criticized his reporting as tendentious, but The Times kept him as a correspondent until 1941. Since the 1980’s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures.

New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty
​

Despite the obvious problems with Duranty's work, the NYT published it anyway, and it took them another fifty years to admit their mistake. Appeals to the editorial integrity of the New York Times, and to the reliability of its due diligence, do not impress.

 

[bruto]

'Lodestar' is an anagram for 'dares lot'. I bet there are other clues hidden in the text.

It's also a few other things including "leads rot" and "least rod."

 

[theprestige]

You never accept articles based on anonymous sources? You seem to be grasping at straws here.

Wait, what?

Are you saying you do accept anonymous, unverified claims? Why?

 

[Ziggurat]

You never accept articles based on anonymous sources? You seem to be grasping at straws here.

If there's only one anonymous source with no confirmation, then yes, an article is suspect. Most journalists know this. Most readers should too.

 

[trustbutverify]

Unfortunately the wording in the 25th is "unable" to perform his duties, not unfit. Besides which, if his cabinet did so then Trump would relieve them all, and they could no longer work covertly to thwart his worst impulses. And all for naught. Since there is about a 0.000001% chance that congress, needing a 2:1 majority in both houses, would actually remove him.

Exactly. Also, I'm not sure I'd characterize undermining Dump's ability to turn his indigestion-related nightmares into policy as "treason".

 

[Giordano]

delete - double post

 

[Giordano]

Editing screwup. See below.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think the letter's overall effect is harmful to the GOP

I'm not sure that it does. While it plays directly into the "resistance" belief that Trump is unfit, it also plays directly into the Trump base belief that there's an unelected bureaucracy that's trying to undermine the results of the 2016 election. It's not a given that the first message will be more important than the second message. It will certainly help polarize things, but the overall effect is hard to gauge.

 

[kellyb]

If there's only one anonymous source with no confirmation, then yes, an article is suspect. Most journalists know this. Most readers should too.

Did you listen to the NYT podcast with the editor, explaining how he confirmed it came from someone in the admin?

The NYT editor gave confirmation that the letter is some sort of "legit". Someone in the admin was willing to claim authorship.

All you're left with is speculating that the NYT editor lying after that.

 

[varwoche]

Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time. Duranty’s prize-winning articles quoted not a single one – only Stalin, who forced farmers all over the Soviet Union into collective farms and sent those who resisted to concentration camps.

[...]

Some of Duranty’s editors criticized his reporting as tendentious, but The Times kept him as a correspondent until 1941. Since the 1980’s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures.

New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty
​

Despite the obvious problems with Duranty's work, the NYT published it anyway, and it took them another fifty years to admit their mistake. Appeals to the editorial integrity of the New York Times, and to the reliability of its due diligence, do not impress.

That you have to reach back 80 years for a counter suggests that the NYT editorial board is generally trustworthy.

 

[Belz...]

That is precisely why you shouldn't simply accept it as true. It's potentially a textbook example of confirmation bias.

You're absolutely right, which is why I don't.

However, since it paints the same picture as Wolff and Woodard, in addition to many other 'hints' we've been getting, and that the Times knows who wrote the piece, I see that as good confirmation of its authenticity. Trump's and Sanders' reaction to it just seals the deal. This op-ed doesn't exist in a vaccuum.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Wait, what?

Are you saying you do accept anonymous, unverified claims? Why?

This one is verified and you know it. Why lie about what I'm saying?

This article is verified and it only meets the lesser definition of anonymous, name withheld, as opposed to name unknown.

 

[theprestige]

No. The test for inability is explicitly described in the amendment. Congress is invoked to resolve disputes about the outcome of the test, because while the test is clear, it is not immune to dispute.


Certainly. Likewise, "made to pass the test of ability under duress" would fall under the "unable" category.

But the two questions are very different. "Is the president unable to act in the role, despite appearances?" is a much narrower question than "is the president acting in the role so badly that he should be removed?". Thus, since both questions require two thirds of Congress to support the desired outcome, impeachment is a much better fit for pursuing that outcome. One obvious reason this is so is that for the impeachment process, Congress doesn't have to explore the President's inner motives, only the external results. If the President is behaving badly, Congress can impeach him on that basis alone. If it's a 25th Amendment dispute, Congress has to actually answer the question of mental health, instead of simply examining the outcome.

Impeachment (and conviction):
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

25th Amendment:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office."[/QUOTE]

I borked my quote tags, which seems to have caused you to bork yours. I apologize.

Also, I don't see the point of quoting the text of the two passages. Those are the starting points, we've already moved forward from there.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Wait, what?

Are you saying you do accept anonymous, unverified claims? Why?

An anonymous source vetted by one of the biggest news organizations in the country isn't the same thing as an anonymous claim.

I can see you just itching to lay down the "One True Skeptic Card" but just put it back in the deck.