My Dad would have already burned through a series of colorful adjectives for Morticia, Gomez and all the Trumps…
4 Likes
That partially an effect of everything else going wrong in his campaign. When a candidate is in such a bad, down cycle, the public and the media become increasingly skeptical of everything the candidate says. That’s why falling into a deep hole is a very, very bad thing for a campaign…because its incredibly hard to rebuild the credibility with the public that is necessary to even start climbing out.
Of course, in this case…these ARE pretty pitiful attacks. Its just name calling, without nearly nothing behind them.
And let me just respond to one other thing that is bothering me concerning this WaPo “four pinocchios” thing.
“As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions. While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements.”
Read that carefully. It essentially says she told the truth, but we at WaPo don’t like hearing technical legalistic answers…even though the question is very much a legalistic and technical question.
They admit that Comey said she did not lie to the FBI, but again, WaPo doesn’t like that because of above and it doesn’t jive with the meme they are trying to create.
“And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server.”
Again…Comey said that the emails were retroactively classified, and she shouldn’t have been using a private server. Which is precisely what Hillary has said numerous times in public, and has offered up numerous apologies for doing.
In other words…WaPo gave her 4 pinocchios because they didn’t like her response…not because it was untruthful. And they didn’t like it because it wasn’t in nice easy to parse and digest format. Its like asking me which curved line is covering more of a graph and I use calculus to give you the answer…but you failed calculus so you don’t like that answer…even though its the correct answer.
5 Likes
In a coincidence about a half hour ago-- I was reading info from a thoughtful writer concerning Arsenal FC (my fave soccer) club. There have been years of bickering between two sides of fans split over decisions of the team to spend/not spend more freely on talent for many years now. (AFC is a good-to-very good team, whose manager has been in place for 20yrs-- which will likely never occur again in any pro sport. So there are entrenched differences among its’ fans.)
An excerpt on the thought processes of (UK soccer) readers-- and why (US) MSM delivers the product they do:
Then we had the excellent analysis by Dr Drew Gray, head of history at the University of Northampton, which showed how newspapers have developed into products that have moved further and further into the propagation of myths in the desperate search for readership, and how this has continued into radio, TV, and of course the internet.
In short, making up stories that give instant answers and which instantly appeal to readers is cheaper than researching the truth, and gets more readership than the truth, because we all appear to have a desire for the sensational, the easy to understand, and stuff that knocks the powerful.
Put those first two points together, and the last thing the media is going to do is say, “actually this is rather complex”. Try that as a commentator, and you don’t get interviewed. Say, “Arsenal get the most injuries and it is all Wenger’s fault” and you’ll get coverage in the paper every time, and the myths will be continued.
Thus the media build on what seems to be natural inclinations inside most of us to look for simplistic explanations and simplistic solutions, and we have an ability to believe in them even when they are wrong, and repeatedly shown to be wrong.
But this situation has become more and more exacerbated by Twitter which builds specifically on these false desires within all of us: the desire to have simple answers which can be expressed very quickly.
Stefan Stieglitz, professor of professional communication in electronic media at the University of Duisburg-Essen hit on the point when he was quoted in the Guardian saying, “If people get new information that is in contrast to what they believe then they tend to neglect this new information for as long as possible.”
The media laps it up – it is cheap and a way to survive, and telling people that, “it’s much more complex than that,” is rarely a way to win friends. But there is something worse than that going on.
For what struck me as I started to write this series of articles, I found that many readers genuinely didn’t understand what I meant by things like “research”, “evidence” and “logical deduction” and I was taken aback by this.
If so inclined to read the article for context:
http://untold-arsenal.com/archives/55087?
It’s a simple equation that suffices for the masses-- but seems to really piss-off those of us who regard researching technicalities as a basis for believing what we’re told by media.
jw1
1 Like
Been missing mine too-- very much-- lately.
(Dad passed 8 days before BHO’s first inauguration.
I’ll toast him with our fave beer later today. Cheers Dad!)
jw1
2 Likes
Actually, he’s not dating himself. There’s a recently released graphic novel based on this Twilight Zone episode, and I just read it with my son last week.
So from my point of view, the reference is pretty hip.
Uncannily so, in fact.
1 Like
yeah. but there’s still the carbon dating thing.
“She’s really pretty close to unhinged,”". And she’s like an unbalanced person." Like all characterizations of Clinton by any conservative, this is what psychologists call PROJECTION.
1 Like
Somewhere within the past week, I’ve seen some right wing site making that assertion. I didn’t have the energy to track down what they were talking about.
This is part of the secret strategy for victory I guess. Never give any details, remain vague and uncommitted, only allude to things that may be, deflect when pressed then project all faults and foibles onto your opponent.
This tactic keeps Dumbo Donald from ever actually stating a policy or having to talk about any real agenda but then again, that is the problem, he’s got nothing but insults and obnoxiousness.
Who cares if he wins a name calling fight, when the problem is that he is in a name calling fight in the first place.
In Trump world, national and world affairs take a back seat to talking smack and tweet wars.
I’m sure that he could announce Armageddon in 140 characters or less.
2 Likes
Ya know, I came here just to post “Sad!” in a comment, chuckle and move on, and then you had to go and drag the Overton Window into it, and now I’m all depressed.
This election is going to test whether a crushing electoral defeat can cram the monsters back through the window into the realm of the unthinkable, or at least the politically suicidal radical. Of course, first we have to get the crushing defeat.
4 Likes
Then you see a different animal than I do.
Trump is well know for stiffing people he owes money to. For reneging on contracts. For beating his first wife, Ivana, up after botched hair surgery. For leaving investors in his projects holding the bag when he declares bankruptcy and lots more.
I would call him an asshole. Who tosses a baby out of a rally because the child cries? Who ejects members of a silent protest because they stood up and held up pocket copies of the Constitution at one of his rallys?
edit
By the way… "savage asshole " are your words. But on thinking on them I guess that even though I did not use them initially I guess I agree.
Exactly the comment I was going to post when I saw this story. All Hillary has to watch out for now is that she does not descend to Trump’s kindergarten level.
This is why I read comments. Always hoping to find one like this. Thanks!
1 Like
He is trying to bait her. That technique worked in the primaries. It won’t work with Hillary. She isn’t one of the dwarfs.
1 Like
Sanders’ Free College tuition is the rare example from the left. Read something a few years ago about a righty explaining Overton to a lefty who couldn’t understand why they kept losing ground. Right always willing to take the hit by suggesting something preposterous to move the window.-- Bachmann, Gohmert, King.
Since he projects all of his own faults on her, it’s no surprise he also thinks she can be baited as easily as he can. He really is just that stupid.
2 Likes
So, he’s stealing comments others have said about him and trying to lay them on HRC? What is it with the Trumps and stealing the words of others?
Seriously, some serious projection going on there.
1 Like
I would argue that the WaPo politifact piece is a bit worse than what your article discusses. Because its literally the media berating and punishing a public figure for NOT making thing easy for them. Its one thing to reduce your reporting down to simplistic sensationalism…its step down the ladder when you are, in essence, publicly scolding a politician for not reducing her answer down to the same level…knowing full well that if she did, she would be cutting her own throat and WaPo would be at the front of the line to lap up the blood.
If Hillary were to give simplistic answers to this issue…the press would be all over her for precisely what WaPo did in this piece…for lying. This piece would have been even worse, condemning her for reducing a complex legal matter into something simple sounding merely for political gain.
Which is what makes this so much worse.
James O’Keefe is apparently practicing his technique: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/brian-dickerson-james-okeefe-column
2008- Donald Trump praised Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primary, saying that she would make a “great president.”
Trump, Yesterday- Clinton is “unhinged” and has a bad temperament, which he said makes her unfit for the presidency.
One of these statements makes Trump a liar.