Examples of liberal journalism that embody the virtues of inquisitiveness, education, and empathy you claim it does would seem to be exceedingly rare. They clearly appear to lack inquisitiveness when it comes to the accuracy of what they publish against their political opponents, judging by the amount of retracted false stories last week. So its hard to see the rationale for believing they posses these qualities in general.
I still can't find even one retracted false MSM story damaging on Obama but i'm all for being enlightened on the matter.
Question:
Was the Birther articles ever retracted and apologized for?
I still can't find even one retracted false MSM story damaging on Obama but i'm all for being enlightened on the matter.
There have been plenty of fake stories about Obama. Problem is, just because a story is fake doesn't mean the author retracts it. Sometimes people make stuff up and never own up to the lie. Sometimes people get stuff wrong and never own up to making a mistake.
So I don't see why the story has to be retracted in order to count.
While Trump complains daily about press stories that he says are "lies" (rather than mistakes) everyone is of course forgetting he himself willfully and purposefully told one of the biggest lies of all: That Barack Obama was not born in the United States, thus was not eligible to be President. This was a conspiracy concocted to appeal to racists all across the country, for SURELY someone named Barack Obama couldn't actually be a legitimate President. Donald Trump wasn't just some birther, he was THE birther. And the only reason he was ever on the radar in the Republican primary discussion leading up to 2016 to being with was because of his multi-year crusade saying he had proof, and agents in Hawaii digging up info. Then, one day on the campaign trail, he gave the most half-ass press conference you will ever see just tossing that whole line of thinking to the side (in the expediency of the moment only). And then the issue disappeared. Not with me. Screw Donald Trump and his complaints about honesty and integrity. He wouldn't know what either felt like if it bit him on the ass.
Again, in pushing Birtherism, we are talking about a lie that was calculated for a specific effect. Done on purpose. Pushed in media that would amplify it (FOX News and AM radio). Donald Trump saw the racist backlash towards Obama, and (as I mentioned earlier) being a student of Michael Savage and other talk radio hosts, he saw the way to keep himself relevant in the Obama years. He questioned whether Obama actually deserved to get into Harvard (because he's black). He questioned whether he was even a legitimate citizen of this country (because he was black). He complained about how much Barack Obama golfed during his Presidency, then turned around when he took office and proceeded to golf at least 5-10 times as much (nearly a 1/3rd of this entire year, as a matter of fact). And when push came to shove, when it came up on the campaign trail near the end, after YEARS (not days or hours like some of these stories) of pushing his bullshit birther narrative, he chickened out. He knew he never had the goods, so he did what he always did after one con-job has played itself out. He pretended it had never happened and moved on to the next one. Well, it did happen. And if people want to talk about WHY Donald Trump is sitting in the Oval Office right now, you can start with two things. 1.) Birtherism and 2.) calling Mexicans rapists. That's the crux of his entire appeal. And if you want to go back to before this thread took off in popularity after his election, I believe you'll find a few posts of mine around the time of the Republican primaries explaining why he was going to win them. For the exact reasons I just mentioned.
As I mentioned, Trump himself is lying constantly. And he denies access to the press.
So they have to guess. This causes them to be wrong sometimes. This happens because he lies and denies them access and he lies when they do have access.
This is not the MSM's fault. This is Trump's fault.
They got it right most the time with Obama because he was not making outlandish lies all the time and they could access him and his people. There was no need for guesswork and trying to untangle the story through other sources.
Did Obama lie? No most of the time. Was he always acting in the interest of mainstreet and not walstreet, yes he was not always working for you and me. But in general he wasn't lying about big things and little things all the time. The majority of the time he was honest. Trump majority of the time is lying. Not just simple lies either, outlandish bigly lies.
I don't believe Trump has held anything resembling a press conference since August. Scratch that. He has held ONE his entire Presidency, which is approaching the one-year mark. According to the Washington Post counter that is keeping track of this subject, it has been (get this) 297 days since Trump's last press conference. My guess is that number will reach 400, then 500, ad infinitum. The safe money is that he never holds one again. Which, just like not releasing his tax returns (so NO ONE in the public has a clue about his actual conflicts of interest, which are legion), it is another assault on democratic norms that only worked because we didn't have uniformly HORRIBLE people occupying the office before now. He provides no info that isn't communicated on Twitter (thus he is never asked questions, only dictating statements), and his Press Secretary lies on a daily basis because she is playing to an audience of one (Donald Trump). There is no alternative for the press but to rely on anonymous sources who are willing to spill the beans on what is going on behind the scenes, because there is no real access to the President himself except when he is walking to his helicopter.
I don't believe Trump has held anything resembling a press conference since August. Scratch that. He has held ONE his entire Presidency, which is approaching the one-year mark. According to the Washington Post counter that is keeping track of this subject, it has been (get this) 297 days since Trump's last press conference. My guess is that number will reach 400, then 500, ad infinitum. The safe money is that he never holds one again. Which, just like not releasing his tax returns (so NO ONE in the public has a clue about his actual conflicts of interest, which are legion), it is another assault on democratic norms that only worked because we didn't have uniformly HORRIBLE people occupying the office before now. He provides no info that isn't communicated on Twitter (thus he is never asked questions, only dictating statements), and his Press Secretary lies on a daily basis because she is playing to an audience of one (Donald Trump). There is no alternative for the press but to rely on anonymous sources who are willing to spill the beans on what is going on behind the scenes, because there is no real access to the President himself except when he is walking to his helicopter.
Trump has done 18 of his 23 mainstream TV interviews with Fox News. Oct 26, 2017
So he'll show up on fox news where they'll ask him things like "how is it, winning all the time?" and "don't you hate cnn they're awful right?" And stuff like that, official state TV for Trump.
That's what we get interviews on Fox and rallies where he dictates his message to the masses of his fans, no questions asked. Supreme snowflake can't handle freedom of the press, they might hurt his widdle feelings or ask a toughie tough question about why he's doing x,y, or z evil thing.
He just wants to get away with it, just sell us all out with no questions asked.
In the past I was rather of the opinion that in mainstream American politics there were just two wings of the right wing Demipublican party. Bush, then the Obama Administration's treatment of whistleblowers, expansion of drone use, the revelations concerning the NSA etc. seemed to make that position easier to hold. Now Trump (and Sanders) have shown how it is possible to 'hack' the major parties by running as outsiders from the inside, appealing to the base by invoking the core issues which parties previously were more inclined to pay lip service to on their way to the pork trough. It seems a lot more difficult to regard the major parties as being in accord these days, which in some ways is a positive trend, although there are obviously going to be some issues on which they don't question the status quo. As societies approach crises, democracy feels a little more precious & relevant.
Let's review some of the thing that come AFTER Amendment 10, shall we??
The 13th, which abolishes slavery The 14th, which guarantees all naturally born citizens equal protection under the law The 15th, the right to vote regardless of race or skin color The 19th, giving women the right to vote The 26th, which lowered the voting age to 18
Let there be no mistake what right-wing voters in Alabama are going in for here.
The Miss Teen USA incident, of course, is another thing he just flat-out admitted to. Anyone arguing otherwise is doing mental gymnastics that defy the mind. It was on the Howard Stern show, and Howard Stern is famous for getting celebrities to talk about things they normally wouldn't.
The Miss Teen USA incident, of course, is another thing he just flat-out admitted to. Anyone arguing otherwise is doing mental gymnastics that defy the mind. It was on the Howard Stern show, and Howard Stern is famous for getting celebrities to talk about things they normally wouldn't.
The comments on Howard Stern's show seemed to be about being a creep at Miss USA and Miss Universe. That admission, combined with accusations from multiple Miss Teen USA contestants, makes me believe he did the same thing at Miss Teen USA, but he hasn't directly admitted it.
The Miss Teen USA incident, of course, is another thing he just flat-out admitted to. Anyone arguing otherwise is doing mental gymnastics that defy the mind. It was on the Howard Stern show, and Howard Stern is famous for getting celebrities to talk about things they normally wouldn't.
To me, it seems inconceivable that Trump hasn't done a great many heinous things in his 71 years on this Earth, but I can only go on what I know. And what I know is that well over a dozen women have accused him of sexual assault, which he bragged about on tape (when he didn't know it was being recorded), and has admitted to walking into a dressing room of teenage girls to look at them them while they were dressing.
Trump has admitted to peeking in on underage girls, but not actually attacking them, and I don't believe anyone has come forward with that accusation. I'd hesitate to assume that he's done it simply because he happens to know a pedophile.
When you think about it, most of us probably do know a pedophile personally; we just don't know it.
The comments on Howard Stern's show seemed to be about being a creep at Miss USA and Miss Universe. That admission, combined with accusations from multiple Miss Teen USA contestants, makes me believe he did the same thing at Miss Teen USA, but he hasn't directly admitted it.
Trump has admitted to peeking in on underage girls, but not actually attacking them, and I don't believe anyone has come forward with that accusation. I'd hesitate to assume that he's done it simply because he happens to know a pedophile.
When you think about it, most of us probably do know a pedophile personally; we just don't know it.
Well, this is a pleasant thought for a Sunday night.
@semiticgod: It depends what you mean by "come forward." The story I linked to is about a lawsuit that was brought by an anonymous woman who ended up dropping it, which she claims is because she was threatened.
I predicted this simply based on personal experience as a youth. I rarely drink now, but I drank ALOT in high school (even more so than in college). In retrospect, it had nothing to do with the alcohol, and everything to do with the fact that the alcohol was illegal and forbidden. While I never smoked much pot (a haven't touched the stuff in well over a decade), this makes perfect sense to me. Since it is now legal, it is no longer as desirable to youth as a forbidden fruit. Or, take into the account that it's possible that parents being able to enjoy it for recreational purposes also makes it far less (for lack of a better term) "cool". This is simply adolescent mindset 101. There were endless arguments about how this would make it more accessible to youth. What the people making those arguments didn't understand that it isn't about accessibility. It was about rebellion. Me and my friends couldn't buy booze at 16 either, but we could get some within 45 minutes any night of the week. The same has been true about pot for decades. Access didn't really change for these kids. The social badge of honor for breaking the rules changed. It isn't as desirable anymore because it isn't against the rules anymore.
Drug use goes down as the years go by in general. I wouldn't be surprised if the decrease was part of a pre-existing trend.
It's not really a trend when it's use was just legalized. That is too big of a variable to ascribe data as part of a trend.
I drank a lot when I was younger as well, after a while it just didn't seem to be fun any more. Going somewhere and getting drunk just leads to you having a crappy next day and possibly barfing.
Here's an introductory speaker at a Roy Moore event recounting the time he went to a brothel with Moore in Vietnam. "There were certainly pretty girls. And they were girls. They were young. Some were very young," he says. He presents this as a testament to Moore's character, because they decided to leave: "He’s honorable. He’s disciplined. Morally straight. Highly principled." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED3zvvKpN6k Just... what is wrong with these people?
I'm actually surprised he's giving money to scientific purposes. At least he's doing something right, but clean tech research would be even more important.
@FinneousPJ: That article didn't say anything about additional funding. My pessimistic interpretation is that this is mostly just a way to make NASA stop doing climate science.
They are politicians, which means they have a need for other people to think of them as "important" or they enjoy being in a position where they can tell other people what to do and/or how they should be living. In general, they are all narcissists because they crave the attention and the power which comes with holding a political office.
*************
In the aftermath of several politicians stepping down last week, leading to this week's calls for Trump to resign over similar circumstances, there are several important questions which need to be asked and answered:
How many allegations are sufficient to warrant a politician stepping down from office? Only one? Three? Five or more?
What level of allegation is sufficient to warrant a politician to step down? Asking someone for a date multiple times without any physical contact? Unwanted kisses, hugs, or swats on the butt? Actual groping?
Should the allegations be proven first before the politician is forced to step down or are the allegations sufficient on their own?
If the allegations alone are sufficient for removal or being asked to step down, how many more politicians need to remove themselves from their campaigns or currently-held offices?
If allegations alone are sufficient for removing a politician from office then won't it be only a matter of time before politically-motivated allegations are made, designed specifically to remove a particular politician from office? (that is similar to what that O'Keefe nut-job was trying to do but the next person to try it will be a little more subtle about it)
Are allegations leading to removal from office or being asked to step down from a corporate position equivalent to "guilty until proven innocent"?
Perhaps if we (the collective we) would stop putting politicians, corporate executives, and celebrities on pedestals and treating them as if they were demigods then some of this crap would stop happening. Not only would those people no longer feel as if they were demigods, able to do what they want when they want with whom they want, but some people who are unhealthily attracted to power (again, for a variety of reasons) won't give in to that allure, thus putting themselves into a very risky position.
Comments
Was the Birther articles ever retracted and apologized for?
So I don't see why the story has to be retracted in order to count.
Again, in pushing Birtherism, we are talking about a lie that was calculated for a specific effect. Done on purpose. Pushed in media that would amplify it (FOX News and AM radio). Donald Trump saw the racist backlash towards Obama, and (as I mentioned earlier) being a student of Michael Savage and other talk radio hosts, he saw the way to keep himself relevant in the Obama years. He questioned whether Obama actually deserved to get into Harvard (because he's black). He questioned whether he was even a legitimate citizen of this country (because he was black). He complained about how much Barack Obama golfed during his Presidency, then turned around when he took office and proceeded to golf at least 5-10 times as much (nearly a 1/3rd of this entire year, as a matter of fact). And when push came to shove, when it came up on the campaign trail near the end, after YEARS (not days or hours like some of these stories) of pushing his bullshit birther narrative, he chickened out. He knew he never had the goods, so he did what he always did after one con-job has played itself out. He pretended it had never happened and moved on to the next one. Well, it did happen. And if people want to talk about WHY Donald Trump is sitting in the Oval Office right now, you can start with two things. 1.) Birtherism and 2.) calling Mexicans rapists. That's the crux of his entire appeal. And if you want to go back to before this thread took off in popularity after his election, I believe you'll find a few posts of mine around the time of the Republican primaries explaining why he was going to win them. For the exact reasons I just mentioned.
So they have to guess. This causes them to be wrong sometimes. This happens because he lies and denies them access and he lies when they do have access.
This is not the MSM's fault. This is Trump's fault.
They got it right most the time with Obama because he was not making outlandish lies all the time and they could access him and his people. There was no need for guesswork and trying to untangle the story through other sources.
Did Obama lie? No most of the time. Was he always acting in the interest of mainstreet and not walstreet, yes he was not always working for you and me. But in general he wasn't lying about big things and little things all the time. The majority of the time he was honest. Trump majority of the time is lying. Not just simple lies either, outlandish bigly lies.
Oct 26, 2017
So he'll show up on fox news where they'll ask him things like "how is it, winning all the time?" and "don't you hate cnn they're awful right?" And stuff like that, official state TV for Trump.
That's what we get interviews on Fox and rallies where he dictates his message to the masses of his fans, no questions asked. Supreme snowflake can't handle freedom of the press, they might hurt his widdle feelings or ask a toughie tough question about why he's doing x,y, or z evil thing.
He just wants to get away with it, just sell us all out with no questions asked.
Meanwhile, a 2011 Roy Moore interview has turned up, where he suggests that we really don't need anything past the 10th Amendment to the Constitution:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/364203-moore-in-2011-interview-getting-rid-of-every-amendment-after-the-10th-would
Let's review some of the thing that come AFTER Amendment 10, shall we??
The 13th, which abolishes slavery
The 14th, which guarantees all naturally born citizens equal protection under the law
The 15th, the right to vote regardless of race or skin color
The 19th, giving women the right to vote
The 26th, which lowered the voting age to 18
Let there be no mistake what right-wing voters in Alabama are going in for here.
...and while I'm at it, let's not forget the Miss Teen USA stuff.
When you think about it, most of us probably do know a pedophile personally; we just don't know it.
I predicted this simply based on personal experience as a youth. I rarely drink now, but I drank ALOT in high school (even more so than in college). In retrospect, it had nothing to do with the alcohol, and everything to do with the fact that the alcohol was illegal and forbidden. While I never smoked much pot (a haven't touched the stuff in well over a decade), this makes perfect sense to me. Since it is now legal, it is no longer as desirable to youth as a forbidden fruit. Or, take into the account that it's possible that parents being able to enjoy it for recreational purposes also makes it far less (for lack of a better term) "cool". This is simply adolescent mindset 101. There were endless arguments about how this would make it more accessible to youth. What the people making those arguments didn't understand that it isn't about accessibility. It was about rebellion. Me and my friends couldn't buy booze at 16 either, but we could get some within 45 minutes any night of the week. The same has been true about pot for decades. Access didn't really change for these kids. The social badge of honor for breaking the rules changed. It isn't as desirable anymore because it isn't against the rules anymore.
I drank a lot when I was younger as well, after a while it just didn't seem to be fun any more. Going somewhere and getting drunk just leads to you having a crappy next day and possibly barfing.
Just... what is wrong with these people?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/trump-astronauts-moon/index.html
I'm actually surprised he's giving money to scientific purposes. At least he's doing something right, but clean tech research would be even more important.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/what-everybody-got-wrong-about-that-viral-video-of-a-starving-polar-bear
*************
In the aftermath of several politicians stepping down last week, leading to this week's calls for Trump to resign over similar circumstances, there are several important questions which need to be asked and answered:
How many allegations are sufficient to warrant a politician stepping down from office? Only one? Three? Five or more?
What level of allegation is sufficient to warrant a politician to step down? Asking someone for a date multiple times without any physical contact? Unwanted kisses, hugs, or swats on the butt? Actual groping?
Should the allegations be proven first before the politician is forced to step down or are the allegations sufficient on their own?
If the allegations alone are sufficient for removal or being asked to step down, how many more politicians need to remove themselves from their campaigns or currently-held offices?
If allegations alone are sufficient for removing a politician from office then won't it be only a matter of time before politically-motivated allegations are made, designed specifically to remove a particular politician from office? (that is similar to what that O'Keefe nut-job was trying to do but the next person to try it will be a little more subtle about it)
Are allegations leading to removal from office or being asked to step down from a corporate position equivalent to "guilty until proven innocent"?
Perhaps if we (the collective we) would stop putting politicians, corporate executives, and celebrities on pedestals and treating them as if they were demigods then some of this crap would stop happening. Not only would those people no longer feel as if they were demigods, able to do what they want when they want with whom they want, but some people who are unhealthily attracted to power (again, for a variety of reasons) won't give in to that allure, thus putting themselves into a very risky position.