Politics in the Media

[FilmTVGeek80]

1 hour ago, stewedsquash said:

What was the reason for Hillary buying Bernie a $600,000 house, if not so he would go away? I always thought it was so he would go away (and when he didn't her head exploded) but if there is another reason I am open to it.

Trump is rope a doping Putin. Putin is ridiculing Obama (lame duck tweet) and that tweet about the children was definitely a veiled threat. The subtext of Trump's Putin is smart text is Keep on slowing your roll Putin, don't escalate. Obama is trying to escalate things with Russia in the last days of his presidency, to fit in with the talking points of Russian hacking lost the election and that Hillary losing was not push back on Obama's policies.  Trump and Putin are just biding their time, doing what is best for each of their countries. I have no doubts that Putin is watching Trump and Trump is watching Putin. Neither of these guys like each other. I have no trouble sleeping worrying over Trump and Russia. 

Oh cool, Twitchy agrees with my above thoughts. I feel like I did the whole blink blink crossed arms Jeanie thing and it happened, haha:

http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2016/12/31/fly-like-an-ego-obama-informs-america-of-intention-to-become-progress-ensurer-in-chief/

2

Hilary bought Bernie a house? I've seen no reputable sources posting anything of the sort.   

Trump is rope a doping Putin? Seriously? Obama is not trying to "escalate" anything, he's simply doing what any rational president would do when presented with evidence that a foreign country interfered in our election. Sitting back and complimenting Putin is not smart or some kind of strategy on Trump's part. I'm sure Putin is watching Trump and just waiting for Trump to dance to his tune, as he inevitably will. 

[editorgrrl]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/10/bernie-sanders-buys-summer-home/

Quote

Jane O'Meara Sanders inherited a vacation home in Maine, but the family was unable to make use of it due to its distance from their primary residence in Vermont, so she sold it and used the proceeds to finance the purchase of a more suitable vacation home in North Hero, on the shores of Lake Champlain.

Earlier fake news reports said Bernie bought the house with campaign funds.

[fishcakes]

[Pixel]

2 hours ago, editorgrrl said:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/10/bernie-sanders-buys-summer-home/

Earlier fake news reports said Bernie bought the house with campaign funds.

Fact checking seems to be a full time job these days, whether it's in the real world or in your leisure time, vetting what you see on discussion boards. Thanks for the real story of Bernie's house. 

[FilmTVGeek80]

3 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

eta Hillary buying Bernie's house can't be proven, and just another way that the Clinton slime sticks to those around them.

Wow! So, admittedly, there's absolutely no proof of this, yet you choose to believe it anyway because...reasons? How exactly is this thing there's no proof of evidence that slime sticks to those around them? Just because "many others"  (I see the Trump tactic. Throw out a 'see someone other than me believes it' therefore it must be true) believe something - again with no PROOF - does not mean Bernie's reputation has been affected by this in any real way since most people know this is utter wank.

[twoods]

Come on, guys. No need to feed into the obvious trolling. It's not worth it!

I saw a Trump Tower billboard towering over the slums of Mumbai- has anyone seen this madness? The fact that people thought this was a photoshop job really need to go to India and actually see the slums. Now imagine a big billboard with Orangina on it overlooking all that poverty. Is this what the country is going to look like in 4 years- Trump's orange glow face boasting over a sea of poor Americans when he lowers taxes and cuts Social Security, Obamacare, food stamps and Medicare? 

[Ceindreadh]

2 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

Wow! So, admittedly, there's absolutely no proof of this, yet you choose to believe it anyway because...reasons? How exactly is this thing there's no proof of evidence that slime sticks to those around them? Just because "many others"  (I see the Trump tactic. Throw out a 'see someone other than me believes it' therefore it must be true) believe something - again with no PROOF - does not mean Bernie's reputation has been affected by this in any real way since most people know this is utter wank.

Didn't you get the memo? If you feel that something's true then the facts don't matter. 

[BBDi]

2 hours ago, Ceindreadh said:

Didn't you get the memo? If you feel that something's true then the facts don't matter. 

It troubles me that someone believes something that is absolutely unsubstantiated. But doesn't believe things that ARE substantiated. Oh well. 

Bernie made a grown-up decision and dropped out when it was mathematically impossible for him to win and it was clear there was nothing further to be gained, and much to be lost (i.e., Trump getting elected) by staying in and drawing support away from Clinton.  He didn't need a bribe to "go away." He's a smart and conscientious person.  

ETA: If one consults Occam's razor, one might realize that timing-wise, it makes sense to acquire the summer home after Bernie was certain he would not be spending the next 4-8 years in the White House. 

And yes, I do believe Hillary was asked to step aside back in 2007 and support Obama, with the understanding that it would be her "turn" in 2016.  Just like Jeb went into this election cycle thinking it was his turn.  I think this is a flawed way for parties to pick which horse they want to back.  Then again, Clinton and even Jeb are far more qualified than the deluded piss-baby we're stuck with now.  

Edited January 1, 2017 by BBDi

[Chicken Wing]

Quote

Hillary buying Bernie's house can't be proven, and just another way that the Clinton slime sticks to those around them. Because of the timing of the leaving and the purchase of the house, I  think, as do many many others, Bernie was paid off to either leave the campaign trail or paid to campaign for her, take your pick.

Not that I think it's worthwhile to feed the trolls (I can't prove that these comments are true trolling, but it feels like it to me and therefore my feelings are as valid as any fact, ergo, it is trolling), but, huh??? What timing? Suspending his campaign when he officially did not and could not have enough delegates to win the nomination? When is someone supposed to leave if not then? And what does his buying a house have to do with anything and why in the name of holy hell does that suggest that Clinton bought it for him to bribe him to leave? I do not understand this Trump and Trump supporter mode of "thinking" where if two events exist on the same plane of reality it must mean they are related or that one led to the other. Then again, I did cause the sun to rise the other day by making cereal only minutes prior, so, obviously... B.T. Dubs, more than two people believing that I did in fact do that does not give any more credence to the idea that it might be true. Here's a little cheat sheet to help: The likelihood of a piece of information being true is directly proportionate to the number and scale of proven facts supporting it, not the number of stooges who choose to believe logical fallacies and unsubstantiated rumors for no reason other than the fact that spending more than three seconds looking for real information is just too much trouble.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Chicken Wing

[editorgrrl]

Darkest before the dawn: How to prepare for President Trump http://www.salon.com/2017/01/01/darkest-before-the-dawn-how-to-prepare-for-president-trump_partner/

Quote

Here is my 10-point “to do” list for fighting for working people:

• Don’t forget: Trump does not have a mandate.
• Challenge Trump’s nominees.
• Don’t normalize Trump.
• Focus on real people.
• Protest and engage in civil disobedience.
• Oppose Trump’s infrastructure plan.
• Obstruct Trump’s presidency.
• Exploit Republican infighting.
• Mobilize for the next elections.
• Start presidential vetting now.

[Moose135]

2 hours ago, Chicken Wing said:

Then again, I did cause the sun to rise the other day by making cereal only minutes prior, so, obviously...

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc...

[fishcakes]

I follow a few political humorists on twitter and some have resolved that in 2017, they're not going to retweet Donald in order to mock him anymore because they feel like this is giving him the attention that he so desperately craves. And I sympathize with that effort because Donald is an obvious troll. However, at the same time he's a troll who's going to be the president, so we have to feed him, if for no other reason than that he's an indiscriminate glutton and will eventually end up choking on something.

But the thing is, some (not all, but some) of his supporters are emotionally needy trolls too. They don't care if the attention they get is negative, so long as they get attention. Who knows why? They probably have no friends, bad relationships with family members, and if they have jobs, their coworkers try to have as little to do with them as possible. So they turn to the internet, but when they try to interact with other Donald supporters on Breitbart or Infowars or where ever those assholes hang out, even the other assholes don't want to talk to them. So they go to the comments sections of WaPo or the NY Times, they seek out legitimate reporters on Twitter, they go anyplace where informed people are trying to have a real discussion and they lob their nonsense bombs. If they get a response, they post more nonsense. And sadly, they believe that trolling people is evidence that they have an open mind. They're like, "I read that Hillary has Haitian sex-slaves in her garage! See! I'm trying to engage with you but you're so closed-minded!"

So I think the better resolution for 2017 isn't to ignore Donald, which isn't possible anyway (even if you don't follow him on twitter, you should follow someone who retweets him so that when he announces that he's launched the missiles, you'll have about twenty minutes to call your loved ones and tell them goodbye) but to ignore those supporters of his who are also trolls. Obviously, if you encounter a reasonable Donald supporter, for example that one poster here, SyracuseMug was her name I think, then that's a person worth talking to. But as for the ones who only try to rile people up in order to validate their own existence, they need to be shunned on social media, just as they are no doubt shunned in real life. If you see them on twitter, mute them; if you see them on Facebook, block them; if you see them on forums, add them to your ignore list. It won't hurt them; they've had their entire lives to get used to it and will go somewhere else.

[Pixel]

15 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

I follow a few political humorists on twitter and some have resolved that in 2017, they're not going to retweet Donald in order to mock him anymore because they feel like this is giving him the attention that he so desperately craves. And I sympathize with that effort because Donald is an obvious troll. However, at the same time he's a troll who's going to be the president, so we have to feed him, if for no other reason than that he's an indiscriminate glutton and will eventually end up choking on something.

But the thing is, some (not all, but some) of his supporters are emotionally needy trolls too. They don't care if the attention they get is negative, so long as they get attention. Who knows why? They probably have no friends, bad relationships with family members, and if they have jobs, their coworkers try to have as little to do with them as possible. So they turn to the internet, but when they try to interact with other Donald supporters on Breitbart or Infowars or where ever those assholes hang out, even the other assholes don't want to talk to them. So they go to the comments sections of WaPo or the NY Times, they seek out legitimate reporters on Twitter, they go anyplace where informed people are trying to have a real discussion and they lob their nonsense bombs. If they get a response, they post more nonsense. And sadly, they believe that trolling people is evidence that they have an open mind. They're like, "I read that Hillary has Haitian sex-slaves in her garage! See! I'm trying to engage with you but you're so closed-minded!"

So I think the better resolution for 2017 isn't to ignore Donald, which isn't possible anyway (even if you don't follow him on twitter, you should follow someone who retweets him so that when he announces that he's launched the missiles, you'll have about twenty minutes to call your loved ones and tell them goodbye) but to ignore those supporters of his who are also trolls. Obviously, if you encounter a reasonable Donald supporter, for example that one poster here, SyracuseMug was her name I think, then that's a person worth talking to. But as for the ones who only try to rile people up in order to validate their own existence, they need to be shunned on social media, just as they are no doubt shunned in real life. If you see them on twitter, mute them; if you see them on Facebook, block them; if you see them on forums, add them to your ignore list. It won't hurt them; they've had their entire lives to get used to it and will go somewhere else.

This is excellent advice. If people keep taking the bait and getting riled up, eventually we may lose this place completely because it takes too much time and effort to moderate. I love the ignore function. I started using it a little too late, but now that I do, my blood pressure is lower. 

I also had to stop reading the comments on Facebook political posts and in other places, because the trolls there would just make my head explode. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Pixel

[NinjaPenguins]

Hillary did not buy Bernie a house

Hillary did not buy Bernie a mouse

She did not buy him an aluminum can

She did not buy him a mini-van

No, Hill did not buy the Bern a home

Or even a vanilla ice cream cone

Has anyone asked themselves why, why, why

they'd believe such a silly lie?

Perhaps it is naught but fate

to be consumed by Clinton hate

[SpencerHawk]

1 hour ago, editorgrrl said:

Darkest before the dawn: How to prepare for President Drumpf http://www.salon.com/2017/01/01/darkest-before-the-dawn-how-to-prepare-for-president-trump_partner/

Don't forget local, state, gubernatorial, mayoral and congressional. All of that is important to keep track of and to learn about. 

[walnutqueen]

54 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

I follow a few political humorists on twitter and some have resolved that in 2017, they're not going to retweet Donald in order to mock him anymore because they feel like this is giving him the attention that he so desperately craves. And I sympathize with that effort because Donald is an obvious troll. However, at the same time he's a troll who's going to be the president, so we have to feed him, if for no other reason than that he's an indiscriminate glutton and will eventually end up choking on something.

But the thing is, some (not all, but some) of his supporters are emotionally needy trolls too. They don't care if the attention they get is negative, so long as they get attention. Who knows why? They probably have no friends, bad relationships with family members, and if they have jobs, their coworkers try to have as little to do with them as possible. So they turn to the internet, but when they try to interact with other Donald supporters on Breitbart or Infowars or where ever those assholes hang out, even the other assholes don't want to talk to them. So they go to the comments sections of WaPo or the NY Times, they seek out legitimate reporters on Twitter, they go anyplace where informed people are trying to have a real discussion and they lob their nonsense bombs. If they get a response, they post more nonsense. And sadly, they believe that trolling people is evidence that they have an open mind. They're like, "I read that Hillary has Haitian sex-slaves in her garage! See! I'm trying to engage with you but you're so closed-minded!"

So I think the better resolution for 2017 isn't to ignore Donald, which isn't possible anyway (even if you don't follow him on twitter, you should follow someone who retweets him so that when he announces that he's launched the missiles, you'll have about twenty minutes to call your loved ones and tell them goodbye) but to ignore those supporters of his who are also trolls. Obviously, if you encounter a reasonable Donald supporter, for example that one poster here, SyracuseMug was her name I think, then that's a person worth talking to. But as for the ones who only try to rile people up in order to validate their own existence, they need to be shunned on social media, just as they are no doubt shunned in real life. If you see them on twitter, mute them; if you see them on Facebook, block them; if you see them on forums, add them to your ignore list. It won't hurt them; they've had their entire lives to get used to it and will go somewhere else.

BRAVA.

For some reason, I am reminded of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction : "I will not be IGNORED, Tom".

Overuse of "lol" is often enough to make me ignore posts.  I'm old, have little patience and better things to do with whatever time I have left.  Perhaps now more than ever.

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

He knows stuff haha. Heads are exploding. 

He said a lot of obviously untrue things and then threw in his usual "I know much more than everyone and I know secret things I can't tell you" that have never so far linked to actual knowledge on his part. The intelligence agencies know stuff. Nobody's head is exploding, just sadly shaking "no."

I think somebody once said Trump was not only the poor man's idea of a rich man, he was the ignorant man's idea of an omniscient man. It's the difference between wanting to know as much as you can and wanting to feel like you know stuff other people don't know.

[NewDigs]

Nicholas Kristof 's NYTimes column yesterday is interesting.

'Lessons From the Media’s Failures in Its Year With Trump'

It's not a bunch of talking heads sitting around chortling over their perceived dilemma but has some actual info.

I wish someone would call Moonves to task for:

'As Leslie Moonves, the CBS president, said in February about Trump’s run: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”'

What a disgusting take. From a disgusting man. 

Perhaps my favorite bit of Kristof's:

'We will soon have as commander in chief the most evasive, ignorant and puerile national politician I’ve ever met, and while there are many factors behind his election, I think we in the media contributed by skimping on due diligence.'

But that ^ might be too kind.

Overall, imho, a good overview of failures and possible solutions.

Edited January 1, 2017 by NewDigs

[Duke Silver]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/815653213168955392

[ebk57]

Listening to the top-of-the-hour news on CBS radio, I noticed last week that they now sign off from the newscast not with "you're listening to CBS radio news", but with "you're listening to REAL news from CBS radio news."

Oy vey - sad that it's come to that...

[Duke Silver]

[netlyon2]

I'm not in the Boston area and don't know much about the Globe, but I wonder if/how many other news outlets will announce similar intent.

The Globe editorial board’s resolutions for 2017

[Chicken Wing]

Quote

 

and while there are many factors behind his election, I think we in the media contributed by skimping on due diligence.'

But that ^ might be too kind.

 

Malpractice, is what it is. Media malpractice.

[parisprincess]

If the Boston Globe's resolutions included either holding Trump accountable his lies or to stop reporting every word that comes out of his mouth, then I'd be impressed.

[NinjaPenguins]

I once got a Sowell book before embarking on a long and meaningful journey, and I did, in fact, mail a thank you card to the giver of that most generous gift. I began a voyage that many young adults make in order to broaden their horizons and expand their minds. I wanted to know who I was and what I was made of.

The trip started with my friends Ernie and Millary picking me and my stuff up in front of my childhood home. My parents waved good-bye, looking both worried and relieved at the same time, if such a thing is possible. Ernie's old VW van with the Imagine Whirled Peas bumpersticker jostled Millary and I as we smoked joints behind a beaded curtain and read aloud from the collected works of Noam Chomsky. The city melted away behind us and the mean lines of plain country formed sharply in front of us. We stopped at a ramshackle diner and had our fill of bitter coffee, congealed eggs and greasy sausage links. The service was friendly enough, though a few of the clean shaven local boys cut us some wary looks. Might have been the weed tickling our paranoia bone, though.

It was darker than a skunk's bunghole when we finally rolled up on Ernie's family lodge. Funny store about that lodge, if I may. Millary and Ernie had bet on a college football game, the Orange Bowl I do believe, and Ernie had put his winnings into this primitive cabin so as to provide a getaway for his poor relations. First we'd all break it in with a little light mayhem before adulthood got too damn serious, as it always did. We rolled out our sleeping bags on the musty floor, and sure enough Ernie had brought along his trusty lute so we could sing our folk songs backed by a chorus of frogs and crickets.

All was not sunshine and roses there in the bosom of Mother Nature, however, as the butter and lard from our lunch began to work its insidious devilry. My bowels cried havoc and were about to let slip the logs of war. Ernie took it upon himself to break the bad news that the plumbing in the lodge had yet to be hooked up. My swift departure into the woods left in its wake a string of curses that could peel the bark off a tree, if there had been any left after the diner's food had proven even more corrosive during the encore.

My relief was cruelly short-lived, as there were no deer nearby willing to share their bidet and I couldn't trust the leaves rustling around me in the pitch blackness. Then... Glory! I hadn't shrugged off my LL Bean knapsack yet. Inside was a gift from Crazy Uncle Mike, a gift for my birthday six months ago, a gift I'd turned by nose up at. But now, now... that book by Thomas Sowell was as good as Jesus Christ himself manifesting in a beam of holy light, a six pack of Charmin in his hands. I sent Uncle Mike a nice Hallmark full of fervent thanks the next day, my conscience as clear as my ass was of poison oak.

[parisprincess]

I read earlier today about putting people on ignore. For my own sanity, I need to know how to do it. Thanks in advance.

[FilmTVGeek80]

4 minutes ago, NinjaPenguins said:

My relief was cruelly short-lived, as there were no deer nearby willing to share their bidet and I couldn't trust the leaves rustling around me in the pitch blackness. Then... Glory! I hadn't shrugged off my LL Bean knapsack yet. Inside was a gift from Crazy Uncle Mike, a gift for my birthday six months ago, a gift I'd turned by nose up at. But now, now... that book by Thomas Sowell was as good as Jesus Christ himself manifesting in a beam of holy light, a six pack of Charmin in his hands. I sent Uncle Mike a nice Hallmark full of fervent thanks the next day, my conscience as clear as my ass was of poison oak.

 

LMAO. 

[stormy]

parisprincess    just go to your account at the top of the page and click it.  You'll see an ignore choice.

[ebk57]

@NinjaPenguins,... words fail me.  Thankfully, they never fail you.  Absolutely brilliant!! 

[editorgrrl]

19 minutes ago, parisprincess said:

I read earlier today about putting people on ignore. For my own sanity, I need to know how to do it. Thanks in advance.

There's a tutorial pinned at the top of the Everything Else board:

[parisprincess]

Thank you, stormy and editorgrrl!

[Pixel]

@NinjaPenguins, I didn't know of you before a few days ago, but I am grateful for you now. Kudos! And as a writer who puts forth minimal effort here, I am in awe of your off the cuff brilliance. You make it fun to read the stuff that was driving me crazy, just so I can laugh. 

Edited January 2, 2017 by Pixel

[Macbeth]

13 hours ago, Chicken Wing said:

Malpractice, is what it is. Media malpractice.

I remember after the debate where Trump used the free air time to hawk his wares like he was on QVC - a local sports radio show the next morning made fun of him as the items he was touting no longer existed or was no longer produced by Trump inc.  The Trump Steak they could tell by the packaging was just meat from a local supermarket chain.

On NPR the local radio show was talking to a reporter from CNN and they were commenting that at least Trump made it interesting and it wasn't the usual politician canned lines.

I believe it took Anderson Cooper 2 days to call out Trump on the crap he was touting.

[NinjaPenguins]

You are too kind, Pixel. 

Especially in the face of true comedy gold. I mean, an intellectually stunted, narcissistic orange puffer fish outmaneuvering a real life Bond villain? Hillary Clinton setting Bernie Sanders up in a swank vacation home so he'd quit the primary? Donald Trump, champion of women? Who can compete with such hilarity? 

[Chicken Wing]

I used to carry you on a keychain.

[Pixel]

2 hours ago, NinjaPenguins said:

You are too kind, Pixel. 

Especially in the face of true comedy gold. I mean, an intellectually stunted, narcissistic orange puffer fish outmaneuvering a real life Bond villain? Hillary Clinton setting Bernie Sanders up in a swank vacation home so he'd quit the primary? Donald Trump, champion of women? Who can compete with such hilarity? 

I know. This stuff almost writes itself. But when it doesn't, we have you. :)

[sistermagpie]

55 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

Yay, first Twitchy of the new year.

So Twitchy just posts every day or so, right? We can probably check it ourselves while we're deciding for ourselves whether the news is slow or not on any given day, right? And then use the forum to discuss what's going on?

I'm not telling you not to post what you want or anything, it just seems a bit like reading an ad for the site.

Edited January 2, 2017 by sistermagpie

[editorgrrl]

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/02/march-on-washington-and-beyond-how-women-are-resisting-donald-trump_partner/

Quote

Here are six ways women are resisting Trump:

1. Women’s March on Washington

2. Donating to Planned Parenthood in Mike Pence’s name.

3. Teens send vagina lollipops to Donald Trump.

4. Teen Vogue emerges as a political and journalistic force.

5. Women of color elected to most diverse Congress in history.

6. More women running for office.

[backformore]

13 hours ago, parisprincess said:

I read earlier today about putting people on ignore. For my own sanity, I need to know how to do it. Thanks in advance.

right-click on my name, and you can see a choice to "ignore user".  But it would be a mistake, cause I'm awesome. 

[Duke Silver]

So after getting a few days worth of headlines & media attention about some sort of special insider knowledge about #RussianHack, Trump & Goons are predictably walking things back.  (A friend of mine texted me this morning in anger about NPR, something about merely repeating Trump's claims w/ no emphasis that it was him merely claiming to have such info.).  Anyway, yeahh, great job media...keep helping Trump spread his b.s., way to question power.  :eyeroll:

[PatsyandEddie]

Part of Spicer's interview on "New Day was shown on CNN this morning ( JFC what a shrill, awful man ). He says drumpf won't be revealing any new info, just his opinion on the matter. So in other words, a bunch of word salad. Not going to bother tuning in. 

[Duke Silver]

[Padma]

1 hour ago, Duke Silver said:

So after getting a few days worth of headlines & media attention about some sort of special insider knowledge about #RussianHack, Trump & Goons are predictably walking things back.  (A friend of mine texted me this morning in anger about NPR, something about merely repeating Trump's claims w/ no emphasis that it was him merely claiming to have such info.).  Anyway, yeahh, great job media...keep helping Trump spread his b.s., way to question power.  :eyeroll:

They should not let this go.  Trump clearly said that he knows "a lot" about hacking and has special information about this particular situation that no one else has.  John McCain said the hacking by Russia to undermine our election (apparently successfully) is tantamount to an act of war.  If Donald Trump has any "special information" about it, he MUST divulge it for the good of the country.  The media should NOT let him off on this one.

Also, I wish they would stop saying "alleged" hacking.  It's not "alleged" when 17 intelligence agencies and every member of Congress, including some pretty smart people on the intelligence committees, say there's "no question" about it.

When everyone has documented the sky is blue, but Donald Trump thinks it's pink, the sky does not become "allegedly blue". It's still blue, whatever Trump thinks.  And there's enough about the hacking for the press to say, "Russia hacked our election to help Trump get elected".  If they don't want that second part--maybe--but "Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta and had wikileaks release it to hurt Hillary" is pretty consistent with known fact, not opinion.  If they only naysayer is Trump (who still hasn't even gotten briefed on it), then ignore him and drop the "allegedly" part.

He's an idiot (who doesn't know "a lot"--or anything--about hacking).  Treat him like one.

[backformore]

1 hour ago, PatsyandEddie said:

Part of Spicer's interview on "New Day was shown on CNN this morning ( JFC what a shrill, awful man ). He says drumpf won't be revealing any new info, just his opinion on the matter. So in other words, a bunch of word salad. Not going to bother tuning in. 

And this is exactly what is WRONG with this picture.   The man who is going to become president of the USA - he says something, and then his "team"  has to have a spokesperson (I guess KAC was busy, so Spicer was on call)  Explain, interpret, and  tell us exactly how we are supposed to think and feel about what the president said (but didn't mean).  And they explain it in a way that denotes that anyone who takes Trump at face value - believing that the words he says/tweets mean what they actually mean - are guilty of purposely distorting Trump's words to fit an agenda. 

And this is a man whose supporters liked because he "means what he says, he says what he means."  if that were even half-true -  why does he need a team of interpreters?  

I am sometimes reminded of a great movie, "Being There". 

[fishcakes]

This is the weirdest twitter fight ever.

Sopan Deb of CBS and NY Times tweeted that Joe Scarborough "partied" with Donald at Mar-a-Lago on New Year's Eve.

Scarborough then proceeded to lose his shit, tweeting roughly 50 times that Deb is a liar and a hack and giving a convoluted explanation of why he was at Mar-a-Lago (basically he was summoned there for an interview and didn't want to be "restrained" by the Secret Service so he went) and repeatedly says that he was "in street clothes," and "went through the metal detectors," and was at the party for only "30 seconds." At various points, he also seems to claim that he wasn't there at all because he was at home watching two movies and Mariah Carey's performance with his daughters.  Also he compares himself to Tom Brokaw and Ben Bradlee before saying he's signing off twitter for the night, which he eventually does but not before briefly arguing with Maggie Haberman of the NY Times who has a picture of him at the party and calling Deb a liar a few more times.

The End. But no.

Callum Borchers writes about Scarborough's meltdown in a WaPo article.

Scarborough has a second meltdown in which he accuses Borchers of blaming the victim (himself, naturally) and goes through his whole bizarre "street clothes, metal detectors, Deb is LIAR" thing all over again.

My question is, why so defensive, Joe? So what if you attended Donald's Mar-a-Lago party? This is only a thing because he's making it a thing. Here's Scarborough's tweet w/replies timeline, but you have to scroll back about 100 tweets to see the beginning of the meltdown.

Oh, and here's a picture of him at the party:

[sistermagpie]

11 minutes ago, backformore said:

And this is exactly what is WRONG with this picture.   The man who is going to become president of the USA - he says something, and then his "team"  has to have a spokesperson (I guess KAC was busy, so Spicer was on call)  Explain, interpret, and  tell us exactly how we are supposed to think and feel about what the president said (but didn't mean).  And they explain it in a way that denotes that anyone who takes Trump at face value - believing that the words he says/tweets mean what they actually mean - are guilty of purposely distorting Trump's words to fit an agenda. 

OMG, this. It's like KAC on Rachel Maddow saying what Trump was "clearly" saying with his tweet about nukes. Except in fact what he was clearly saying was the he was going to build up our arsenal. It was KAC who was trying to make it less clear, as if he meant some other thing. No matter how many times RM said "He said 'quote.'" She would say no, he didn't say "quote" what he clearly said was.

As if "clearly" is the new "literally."

I honestly feel like they should just stop allowing these people to speak for him.

[Hooper]

Quote

I am sometimes reminded of a great movie, "Being There". 

Being There was a great movie.  Kids these days should see it.  And while they're at it make it a double feature and watch Wag The Dog.

[fishcakes]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/815989154555297792

He's right. They used a picture that shows his face.

[backformore]

The Scarborough stuff is a riot.  Yeah he can't call himself an objective journalist if he partied with the prez.  Especially since the party is seen as more "pay to play" by other outlets.  So, he had a MEETING, before the party, on NYE, at the same place that a party was taking place.  Then to defend himself, he comes up with an alibi as to what he watched on TV that night.  

Basically, if you go to a new year's Eve party, but leave before midnight, were you even there?  It doesn't count, because he left early!?

Edited January 2, 2017 by backformore

[fishcakes]

It's adorable that he thinks he has a reputation as an objective journalist to protect.