Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
WilliamSeger said:
The headline is entirely accurate; it only looks like spin to you because you don't like the implication.
Click to expand...


As I said. But my alternative headline is also entirely accurate. It only looks like spin to you because you don't like the implication.

Actually both are spin, as I elaborated on.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
********. The implication of your rewrite is that the majority thinks Trump is out of the woods, which is false.
Click to expand...


And the implication of the current headline you defend is that the majority thinks Trump is not out of the woods. Which is false as well.

Seger, this is basic logic. Drop it.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Agreed.

The next step is to find something misleading or inaccurate that she presented as fact.
Click to expand...

Sure. I don't intend to check personally, since I don't care that much. I was just pointing out that her status as a commentator rather than reporter doesn't mean that she spouts only opinion without fact.

I don't recall that the article I read (HuffPost?) attacked her for simple facts but for speculation verging on conspiracy theories. Honestly, a commentator's fanciful speculations are fair game for criticism, too. Glenn Beck comes to mind.

Whether Maddow's speculations are too fanciful, I don't know.
 
Childlike Empress said:
And the implication of the current headline you defend is that the majority thinks Trump is not out of the woods. Which is false as well.

Seger, this is basic logic. Drop it.
Click to expand...

Say what? About what? The implication of "Most Americans don't think Trump is in the clear yet on Russia" is that only a minority do think he's been cleared, which is true because those who "aren't sure" also must not "think Trump is in the clear" whatever their reason. You can call that spin, but then we'll need a different label for the intentionally misleading implication of your rewrite. Maybe "propaganda" will do.
 
phiwum said:
Impeachment isn't coming unless Pelosi changes her mind. Your prediction sucks so far.
Click to expand...

And that isn't coming because she knows damn well the Senate won't convict him. The Democrats are better off exposing Trump for what he is through oversight hearings,
 
WilliamSeger said:
It seems many trumpers are honest enough to admit that they don't trust Trump, but it apparently doesn't matter to them.
Click to expand...
That sounds about right. I can even understand it, in a way.

I kinda think that someone so manifestly untrustworthy will eventually lose the trust of some of the folks he's counted on. But I couldn't begin to speculate when.
 
phiwum said:
But, as I said, I don't watch her. I tried just once. It was painfully slow and repetitive, chock full of teasers about what she would say rather than just saying it. Not the way I like to get my news or commentary. Others seem to enjoy her presentation.
Click to expand...

Unlike political commentators on Faux News, who either just parrot what Trump says or spout the first anti-liberal thought that pops into her heads, what Maddow does is build the case; she lays the groundwork, the foundations and the evidence for the point she is getting to. She is very, very thorough, and yes, she sometime repeats stuff, usually the very important stuff that is key to the point.

If you're into sound bytes, 10-second taking points and instant gratification then don't bother watching Maddow, because you wont be equipped with the necessary attention span. If you spend your life turning to the last page of the novel, or fast-forwarding the movie to the last scene to see what happened, you will never understand why the story ended the way it did.
 
phiwum said:
Whether Maddow's speculations are too fanciful, I don't know.
Click to expand...
As long as there's a Fox News, I can't find much to criticize Maddow over. She is not my cup of tea, either, but only because I'm not a big fan of commentary in general, no matter who is doing it. Generally they are preaching to the choir and I don't want to be preached to at all.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
The Impeachment of the Gaps is coming along nicely. Slower than I predicted, but nicely enough just the same.
Click to expand...

Trump's not going to be impeached. That's been clear for a while now, regardless of what he's done. He might also be reelected, given how things are going, and it's unlikely that he'll be indicted by anyone while he's in office. After he goes away, however, assuming he ever does that is, I wouldn't make any long-term plans if I were him.
 
WilliamSeger said:
********. The implication of your rewrite is that the majority thinks Trump is out of the woods, which is false.
Click to expand...

As much as I hate to agree with Childlike, she is correct. It's misleading to add the "not sure" along with the negatives to give a false impression that more people think Trump's troubles aren't over yet.
 
smartcooky said:
Unlike political commentators on Faux News, who either just parrot what Trump says or spout the first anti-liberal thought that pops into her heads, what Maddow does is build the case; she lays the groundwork, the foundations and the evidence for the point she is getting to. She is very, very thorough, and yes, she sometime repeats stuff, usually the very important stuff that is key to the point.

If you're into sound bytes, 10-second taking points and instant gratification then don't bother watching Maddow, because you wont be equipped with the necessary attention span. If you spend your life turning to the last page of the novel, or fast-forwarding the movie to the last scene to see what happened, you will never understand why the story ended the way it did.
Click to expand...

Responded via message to prevent a derail.
 
varwoche said:
I suspect this is nonsense however I didn't see it. By all means, quote the most fact-deprived bits.
Click to expand...

When Trump was sworn in Maddow and friends kept pushing the idea that Trump might pull U.S. troops out of Europe [on Putin's behalf]. They didn't.

After the April 2017 U.S. airstrikes in Syria I recall MSNBC hosts concocting a conspiracy theory about Putin "possibly" setting this all up for his buddy Donald Trump.

This was pure speculation, and not very informed. They took bits of rich Americans having financial connections with Russian oligarchs, which isn't that unusual in the first place, the unverified allegations about Trump's Moscow escapades, a dash of Paul Manafort here and there....

It looked like classic passive-aggressive JAQing off to me. Maddow sounded like she had the answer in her back pocket the entire time.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I believe that Barr was very careful not to say anything that would prove to be false. But Trump and his merry trumpers are gleefully misrepresenting what the Barr letter actually says.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he was, but he's still a Trump supporter and carries with him a well-earned presumption of dishonesty. He needs to prove he told the truth and right now, it doesn't look like he intends to do it.

I have faith we'll ultimately see the full report however. Real Americans in Justice and the Special Council's office (one of whom took a teaching job) will likely leak it to Congress members. Not the preferred method but when they go low, you go lower.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I guess it's a good thing I looked back to see if you had corrected your post before I clicked "Submit Reply." :p
Click to expand...


Yes, thanks for that, I got confused in the ocean of negatives as well. Which doesn't change the fact that both the current and my made-up headline are biased and the original one still visible in the URL is the best choice of the three.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom