What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

timschochet’s political thoughts and commentary- back in here until the election is done (1 Viewer)

“Come on, man.” 
We’ve discussed this before but: most of CNN’s opinion shows in the evening are moderately liberal. (Most of MSNBC’s opinion shows are VERY liberal). But CNN’s news reporting is generally unbiased (at least in terms of Democrat vs Republican; it is certainly biased in terms of pro-American, pro-establishment.) 

CNN’s news reporting has been highly critical of President Trump, but that is because any objective reporting of the news from the last four years should  be highly critical of President Trump. 

 
We’ve discussed this before but: most of CNN’s opinion shows in the evening are moderately liberal. (Most of MSNBC’s opinion shows are VERY liberal). But CNN’s news reporting is generally unbiased (at least in terms of Democrat vs Republican; it is certainly biased in terms of pro-American, pro-establishment.) 

CNN’s news reporting has been highly critical of President Trump, but that is because any objective reporting of the news from the last four years should  be highly critical of President Trump. 
@Sneegor your laughing at me doesn’t do service to your cause. Obviously you disagree with this; I invite you to offer a rebuttal. 

 
Obviously many conservatives believe that CNN’s news reporting is biased (I disagree.) But is it now conservative opinion that their polls are biased as well? And CBS? 
It’s already quite problematic that, in the Trump era, the only news that many conservatives seem to trust is that which agrees with their point of view. If this now extends to polls as well then we are in worse shape than I thought we were. 
Wait till people see how biased the voters are.

 
I think this is one of those times you should work on control.  
If you come into this thread for any reason I regard you as wanting to engage me and worthy of my attention. Hopefully he responds to me in an intelligent manner; if he doesn’t that’s on him. 

 
Wait till people see how biased the voters are.
How people regard results are usually the biggest example of confirmation bias I can think of. If their guy wins it’s because the public agrees with them. If their guy loses it’s because the candidate wasn’t conservative enough or he wasn’t liberal enough. No matter what the public is always with them; you never hear “guess the public disagrees with me about this issue.” 

 
How people regard results are usually the biggest example of confirmation bias I can think of. If their guy wins it’s because the public agrees with them. If their guy loses it’s because the candidate wasn’t conservative enough or he wasn’t liberal enough. No matter what the public is always with them; you never hear “guess the public disagrees with me about this issue.” 
I think you're overlooking the inevitable Trump excuses:

"The media was in the bag for Biden!"

"Voter fraud!"

"Millions of illegals voted for Biden!"

 
I don't want to reply in the Trump HQ thread but I felt the need to comment on HT's post:

Fact Check: Transcript Shows Trump Did Not ‘Refuse’ To ‘Denounce’ Or ‘Condemn’ White Supremacy At Debate

Emily Jashinsky

Here’s a sampling of headlines in major news outlets that purported to capture an exchange on white supremacy between President Trump, Joe Biden, and moderator Chris Wallace during Tuesday night’s debate.

Trump refuses to denounce white supremacy, says ‘stand back and stand by’ on Proud Boys movement

Trump sidesteps call to condemn white supremacists, points to extremism on the left

‘Stand back and stand by.’ During debate, President Trump again refuses to condemn white supremacists

Donald Trump refuses to condemn white supremacists at presidential debate

Trump Refuses to Condemn White Supremacy, Instead Telling Far-Right Group: ‘Stand Back and Stand By’

Trump does not condemn white supremacy, tells far right group Proud Boys to ‘stand by’

Trump Refuses To Condemn White Supremacists — Tells Proud Boys To ‘Stand By’

Now compare those headlines to the transcript they claim to describe, and pay particular attention to Trump’s first response, which the bulk of the coverage glosses over.

WALLACE: “Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups…”

TRUMP: “Sure…”

WALLACE: “And to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha, and as we’ve seen in Portland”

TRUMP: “Sure, I’m prepared to do it, but I would say almost everything I see is from the left-wing not from the right-wing. I’m willing to do anything, I want to see peace…”

WALLACE: “Then do it, sir.”

BIDEN: “Do it, say it.”

TRUMP: “What do you want to call them? Give me a name.”

WALLACE: “White supremacists and right-wing militias”

BIDEN: “Proud Boys”

Trump: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left.”

It is absolutely accurate that Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” I, like many others, interpret that statement to be insufficiently critical (although personally I think it had to do more with Trump’s sloppy speaking style and hostility towards the question than any nefarious motivations). My interpretation, however, does not constitute a fact.

The fact is that Wallace specifically asked Trump if he was “willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups,” and Trump immediately replied, “Sure.” That is incontrovertible. It is not an interpretation. It is also not reflected whatsoever in the headlines that are currently blaring incorrect information to millions of readers.

The counterargument is that Trump’s statement on the Proud Boys was not a condemnation, thus it’s accurate to say he “refused to condemn white supremacy” on the basis that the Proud Boys are a proxy for it. When asked clearly to condemn white supremacy, however, Trump said “sure.” The coverage, then, should reflect that he condemned white supremacy, even if it also reports on the Proud Boys line.

That line is still murky. Is telling them to “stand back” not a condemnation? If so, did he undercut “stand back” with “stand by”? Trump is not an easy politician to cover because he doesn’t speak like a normal politician. Nevertheless, the fact remains that he said “sure” when asked directly to condemn white supremacists. I’m of the opinion that interpreting it as a “refusal” is wrong, but either way he condemned white supremacists in the first part of his exchange with Wallace.

It’s as simple as that. Maybe you think “sure” is insufficient or indicative of a deeper disinterest in the issue. Maybe you think there’s a difference between being “willing” to do something and actually doing it. (If, like George Conway, that’s your take, you still have to explain whether being “willing” to do something is the same as “refusing.”) Maybe you think Trump’s “stand back and stand by” line was almost encouraging. Some people probably saw it as a condemnation. Others may have been displeased. These are all opinions. They are not facts.

Stating as a fact that Trump did not “condemn” white supremacy during the debate is misinformation, plain and simple. He was asked directly to condemn white supremacists, and he did.

The coverage of this exchange is a depressing case study in why the media deserves growing public distrust. These headlines reflect anti-Trump interpretations of the moment, not the reality of what Trump explicitly said—and on an extremely serious issue about which voters deserve to know the absolute truth.

Emily Jashinsky is culture editor at The Federalist. You can follow her on Twitter @emilyjashinsky .
:lmao:   Emily must have written "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." for Clinton 

Desperation is not a good look for Trump supporters.
 
Saying you're willing to do something isn't the same thing as actually doing it. My mistrust of the media has now grown due to Emily's inability or unwillingness to understand that, yet have a media platform to engage in weak sophistry. Mission accomplished?

 
:lmao:    Emily must have written "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." for Clinton 

Desperation is not a good look for Trump supporters.

Also - neat bored
Trump's lack of clarity is his own fault (or perhaps, in this case, his own intention), but I think it's easy to read the Proud Boys statement as a gaffe rather than a refusal to condemn.

Trump was asked if he'd condemn white supremecists and he said sure. He was asked if he'd tell them to stand down and he asked whom he should address. The Proud Boys? Okay, Pround Boys, stand by.

"Stand by" isn't "stand down" but it's close enough to be an unintentional mix-up. (It could also be an intentionally calculated "mix-up" that he knew would be accepted favorably by white supremecists while giving him some deniability with others. But that may be giving him too much cerebral credit.)

Of course, if the gaffe were unintentional, it'd be really easy to clear up with an unequivocal condemnation today...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump's lack of clarity is his own fault (or perhaps, in this case, his own intention), but I think it's easy to read the Proud Boys statement as a gaffe rather than a refusal to condemn.

Trump was asked if he'd condemn white supremecists and he said sure. He was asked if he'd tell them to stand down, and he asked whom he should address. The Proud Boys? Okay, Pround Boys, stand by.

"Stand by" isn't "stand down" but it's close enough to be an unintentional mix-up. (It could also be an intentionally calculated "mix-up" that he knew would be accepted favorably by white supremecists while giving him some deniability to others. But that may be giving him too much cerebral credit.)


If you made that mistake and you saw all the hubbub about it today, wouldn't you make it quite clear what your intention was? Has Trump done that?

I know I would tweet out and shout from the rafters that I just misspoke and I hate white supremacists and everything they represent.

 
If you made that mistake and you saw all the hubbub about it today, wouldn't you make it quite clear what your intention was? Has Trump done that?

I know I would tweet out and shout from the rafters that I just misspoke and I hate white supremacists and everything they represent.
For the record, my edit saying exactly that was submitted before your post appeared. ;)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:lmao:    Emily must have written "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." for Clinton 

Desperation is not a good look for Trump supporters.

Also - neat bored
Were you trying to create a quote manually (by typing out the brackets)? Try clicking the quotation marks in the menu bar, then pasting text into it. That usually works better.

 
Trump's lack of clarity is his own fault (or perhaps, in this case, his own intention), but I think it's easy to read the Proud Boys statement as a gaffe rather than a refusal to condemn.

Trump was asked if he'd condemn white supremecists and he said sure. He was asked if he'd tell them to stand down and he asked whom he should address. The Proud Boys? Okay, Pround Boys, stand by.

"Stand by" isn't "stand down" but it's close enough to be an unintentional mix-up. (It could also be an intentionally calculated "mix-up" that he knew would be accepted favorably by white supremecists while giving him some deniability with others. But that may be giving him too much cerebral credit.)

Of course, if the gaffe were unintentional, it'd be really easy to clear up with an unequivocal condemnation today...
Telling someone to stand back, stand by, or stand down isn't a condemnation. It's a request to refrain from some activity until further notice. Condemnation includes some element of strong disapproval, censure - Trump forwarded no such thing last night. If I'm a Proud Boy, the President just asked me to be ready to get back to work when he gives the word, he didn't just tell me he disapproves of my overall behavior or mindset.

Gaffe doesn't explain this. He didn't condemn because he doesn't condemn. Following the non-condemnation up with "somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left" doesn't really leave a whole lot of room interpretation. That wasn't unintentional.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tell it to the moderator. (Not me. Chris Wallace.) He asked if Trump would tell people to stand down, so he told them to stand by.
Prior to that Wallace said:

“Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups…”

The stand down part was an and clause attached to that initial request. Trump may have addressed the and clause with stand back and stand by, but Trump was clearly asked to condemn and did not do so. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Prior to that Wallace said:

“Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups…”
Yeah, and he said, "Sure."

Then it was switched to the stand down thing.

These weren't written interrogatories. It was a discussion. Things get lost.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biden has announced that of course he will attend the next two debates. Wide choice. 

The second debate is a town hall with the public asking questions. Will Trump try to interrupt them? 
Of course....we see the game plan.  In the absence of a policy position do whatever's necessary to muddy the waters of the person who does.  Rinse Repeat.

 
The debate thread is a good example of why I think I made the right decision to stay in my own thread until the election is over. It’s filled with with trolls making outrageous statements. I would not be able to help myself from responding to some of them, largely with contempt, and I would probably find myself suspended this morning once again. 
You optimism let you down again Tim...it was only a matter of time.

 
Telling someone to stand back, stand by, or stand down isn't a condemnation.
Tell it to the moderator. (Not me. Chris Wallace.) He asked if Trump would tell people to stand down, so he told them to stand by.
Trump said "Stand by" and then immediately followed up with "somebody's got to do something" about "the left." He's justifying their activities. That's not a condemnation.

 
Trump said "Stand by" and then immediately followed up with "somebody's got to do something" about "the left." He's justifying their activities. That's not a condemnation.
In the moment, I assumed he was putting the question back on Biden to be the "somebody" to do something about the left.

Kind of like "Trump, are you going to do something about the right?"

"Sure, but someone needs to handle the left. Joe, are you going to do that?"

But, I can definitely see how some would think he's calling on outside groups to be the somebody. And after re-reading the actual back and forth, I think that's very possible.

 
In the moment, I assumed he was putting the question back on Biden to be the "somebody" to do something about the left.

Kind of like "Trump, are you going to do something about the right?"

"Sure, but someone needs to handle the left. Joe, are you going to do that?"

But, I can definitely see how some would think he's calling on outside groups to be the somebody. And after re-reading the actual back and forth, I think that's very possible.
I think he was saying that vigilantes need to act against antifa. That seemed to be his take on Kyle Rittenhouse, so the message is on-brand for him.

 
In the moment, I assumed he was putting the question back on Biden to be the "somebody" to do something about the left.

Kind of like "Trump, are you going to do something about the right?"

"Sure, but someone needs to handle the left. Joe, are you going to do that?"

But, I can definitely see how some would think he's calling on outside groups to be the somebody. And after re-reading the actual back and forth, I think that's very possible.
Biden can never be the somebody here.  "Only I [Trump]..." can solve whatever the problem of the moment might be.    Remember that Barack "yes we can"  Obama had a messiah complex.

 
Yeah, and he said, "Sure."

Then it was switched to the stand down thing.

These weren't written interrogatories. It was a discussion. Things get lost.
The condemnation was a main point. You interjected at a point in this thread where we were discussing someone else's assertion that Trump had in fact provided a condemnation. He didn't. I won't hold water for him and assume he just forgot. His actions and words have been consistent over a pretty long stretch of time - he didn't condemn because he doesn't condemn. If condemning that kind of mindset and activity was important to him, if he actually held beliefs contrary to those he was asked to condemn, he'd have remembered to offer up the condemnation, and not struggled so hard with concept of formulating one when clearly asked to do so.

Explaining this one away with an excuse of the flavor "it slipped his mind" isn't really a credit to Trump or a refutation of the fact that he doesn't condemn racism or white nationalism. He never has. He gets to own that, especially when he had a sparkling opportunity to at least lie about it and offer up a condemnation at that point in the debate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was riffing on Emily's comments. :confused:
O.k. She was affirming he provided condemnation. Is that what you're asserting as well? That answering "sure" when asked if he would condemn == condemnation? Seems like you're saying he forgot to actually condemn because he got distracted by subsequent exchanges.

 
O.k. She was affirming he provided condemnation. Is that what you're asserting as well? That answering "sure" when asked if he would condemn == condemnation? Seems like you're saying he forgot to actually condemn because he got distracted by subsequent exchanges.
He did not clearly condemn white supremecists. He also did not clearly refuse to condemn them. People are VERY CERTAIN about exactly what Trump did or did not intend based on ambiguous malarkey. I'm saying they should be less certain.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He did not clearly condemn white supremecists. He also did not clearly refuse to condemn them. People are VERY CERTAIN about exactly what Trump did or did not intend based on ambiguous malarkey. I'm saying they should be less certain.
People are very certain that he did not condemn when clearly asked to do so.

For how long and how many times does he get to avoid providing a clear answer to this question before we can legitimately deduce intent?

I think people have deduced intent based on actions and words throughout his history. The failure to condemn when clearly asked to do so last night is just one more piece of evidence lending itself to the conclusion that he does not truly condemn. Regarding ambiguous malarkey - if condemning racism and white nationalism were of much importance to you, you'd have been able to come up with a condemnation in that situation, it's not a thing you'd forget, or need to ask other people to help you formulate, or become too distracted to mention. I don't give him any credit in this area if he really did get so confused in that 10 sentence long exchange that he couldn't get back to the main topic at hand. The topic not being important enough to remember to make a point of it isn't a whole lot better than intentionally not condemning.

I agree with you that we can't be very certain about intent. Maybe he doesn't actually condone racism and white supremacy, maybe he's realized that catering to racists and white nationalists is a good path to get to what he wants. Maybe he'd condemn them if that situation were to change. I may be more certain of that than I am of him actually not condemning racism and white nationalism. But I don't find that to be any "better" a conclusion. There's no good spin on a failure to condemn racism and white nationalism, and there's no question he failed to do so (again) last night. So I can be certain that Trump deserves criticism for this failure, and this failure is one of many reasons he should not be President.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For how long and how many times does he get to avoid providing a clear answer to this question before we can legitimately deduce intent?
The Trump Campaign today released a video of seven instances of him clearly condemning white supremecists, and at least a few of them were unequivocal.

I can't find the link I originally saw from the campaign, but here's the same video from a crazy person on twitter:

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1311359450289061889

I agree with you that Trump is terrible on this issue, but we don't need to overstate it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Trump Campaign today released a video of seven instances of him clearly condemning white supremecists, and at least a few of them were unequivocal.

I can't find the link I originally saw from the campaign, but here's the same video from a crazy person on twitter:

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1311359450289061889

I agree with you that Trump is terrible on this issue, but we don't need to overstate it.
I agree, particularly in consideration of the clips you linked to. Thanks for providing that, I feel more well informed as a result.

 
Look, I can't expect someone as partisan as you to understand that CNN is clearly anti-Trump.  Your last sentence shows your bias so it is pointless talking to you about it.
I agree that CNN is anti-Trump. My point is that the truth, and objective news reporting, are anti-Trump. 

If you watched a news story about a bank robber, would you accuse the news of being biased against the bank robber? You would likely be right, but shouldn’t they be? 

 
I agree that CNN is anti-Trump. My point is that the truth, and objective news reporting, are anti-Trump. 

If you watched a news story about a bank robber, would you accuse the news of being biased against the bank robber? You would likely be right, but shouldn’t they be? 
#BankRobberLivesMatter

 
I agree that CNN is anti-Trump. My point is that the truth, and objective news reporting, are anti-Trump. 

If you watched a news story about a bank robber, would you accuse the news of being biased against the bank robber? You would likely be right, but shouldn’t they be? 
And as you frequently say, your own biases play into that.  

CNN has become quite adept at selectively taking a piece of a Trump speech without context and making it the story.  

I maintain that Trump never called COVID a hoax.  He was saying "The dems are saying I'm doing a terrible job at handling this.  This is their new hoax."  And that's it's own debate.

MSM Headlines:  Trump in speech about COVID:  "This is a hoax."  

 
And as you frequently say, your own biases play into that.  

CNN has become quite adept at selectively taking a piece of a Trump speech without context and making it the story.  

I maintain that Trump never called COVID a hoax.  He was saying "The dems are saying I'm doing a terrible job at handling this.  This is their new hoax."  And that's it's own debate.

MSM Headlines:  Trump in speech about COVID:  "This is a hoax."  
You’re being, IMO, rather generous to Trump in your interpretation of his comment. The CNN headline was more accurate. 

 
And as you frequently say, your own biases play into that.  

CNN has become quite adept at selectively taking a piece of a Trump speech without context and making it the story.  

I maintain that Trump never called COVID a hoax.  He was saying "The dems are saying I'm doing a terrible job at handling this.  This is their new hoax."  And that's it's own debate.

MSM Headlines:  Trump in speech about COVID:  "This is a hoax."  
This would be a believable interpretation, except for one thing: in that same speech, Trump also used the word "hoax" to describe the recent impeachment.

So, clearly Trump was not using "hoax" as a synonym for "opposite."

If Trump hadn't set up "This is their new hoax" with his grievance about impeachment, he would have been fine. But he didn't.

 
This would be a believable interpretation, except for one thing: in that same speech, Trump also used the word "hoax" to describe the recent impeachment.

So, clearly Trump was not using "hoax" as a synonym for "opposite."

If Trump hadn't set up "This is their new hoax" with his grievance about impeachment, he would have been fine. But he didn't.
Most all Republicans see the Impeachment as a hoax.

 
Most all Republicans see the Impeachment as a hoax.
Which is a flaw in Republicans. There is no question that President Trump committed crimes in violation of the Constitution. Republicans chose to ignore this and in the Senate they voted against hearing direct testimony that we have since learned would have confirmed it. Republicans chose to overlook his crime because removing him would have given the Democrats a “win.” 

 
Republicans have done a lot to derail the notion of “white superiority.”

They have showed when you pull back the curtain it is a chubby guy in a bad outfit grasping at the levers of power.  The people in charge have been revealed to be clueless.

Minorities should feel empowered.

 
Trump's lack of clarity is his own fault (or perhaps, in this case, his own intention), but I think it's easy to read the Proud Boys statement as a gaffe rather than a refusal to condemn.

Trump was asked if he'd condemn white supremecists and he said sure. He was asked if he'd tell them to stand down and he asked whom he should address. The Proud Boys? Okay, Pround Boys, stand by.

"Stand by" isn't "stand down" but it's close enough to be an unintentional mix-up. (It could also be an intentionally calculated "mix-up" that he knew would be accepted favorably by white supremecists while giving him some deniability with others. But that may be giving him too much cerebral credit.)

Of course, if the gaffe were unintentional, it'd be really easy to clear up with an unequivocal condemnation today...
I said last night and this morning that in the moment I thought it was a gaffe and not intentional.  And I also said that if it was a gaffe he should have addressed it last night - and now that we are 24 hours later and they can't simply say he screwed up makes me think he told them not to say it.  So he's ok with people thinking it.  Let him own.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top