The Many Faces of US Politics...

Started by Tyrones own, March 20, 2009, 09:29:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

whitey

Quote from: J70 on April 17, 2020, 01:26:38 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 16, 2020, 09:42:49 PM
So The NY Times ran a piece that was so inflammatory that several Democratic presidential candidates came out that very day and called for the impeachment of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

A prominent Democratic Congresswoman announced the same day that she would be introducing a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry of Kavanaugh.

And it was all based on a bunch of BS fed to them by a former Clinton attorney, a fact they also conveniently omitted

And no one lost their jobs

1. The man you so sneeringly dismiss as a "Clinton lawyer", a reference replete with implications of dishonesty and dirt, feeding BS to the authors, was a member of Bill Clinton's impeachment defense team, back in the late 90s, when the firm he worked for was hired for the job. Trump's great public legal defender during the impeachment, Alan Dershowitz, was a member of OJ's defense team, back around the same tome. Is his entire, distinguished career and motivation defined by that particular job, in your eyes?
I would add that Stier has also worked for Republicans in the past and has in recent years professionally advised transition teams of both parties during presidential elections. So much so that he features prominently on the topic in the Michael Lewis book that you yourself recommended here on this very thread.
Partisan hack he is not.

2. I agree that James Dao and the Times did not satisfactorily address why they left out the info that Harmon Joyce didn't remember what Stier alleged. The authors suggest that it was somehow deleted when they removed Harmon Joyce's name from the article. Maybe, but it sounds weak.

3. I also, however, do not see how this could be part of some odious conspiracy on the part of the Times as the book from which the article was drawn was coming out a couple of days later and DID have both Harmon Joyce's name and the fact that she didn't recall what Stier alleged. What would be the point?

4. Especially when the (long) article was buried in the Sunday supplement section in the first place and NOT, as you claim, an editorial piece. And more especially when everyone knows that every piece of any article with political implications is picked apart with a fine toothcomb for inconsistencies, weaknesses and lies. This is the Times, not Alex Jones or the Gateway Pundit or other such non-mainstream outlet where most people aren't going to hear or read about it. The only outcome is every going to be the story and the outlet losing credibility.

So you're okay with The NY Times intentionally trying to undermine the legitimacy of a sitting US Supreme Justice with lies, half truths, innuendo and omissions?  Fair enough

J70

Quote from: whitey on April 17, 2020, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 17, 2020, 01:26:38 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 16, 2020, 09:42:49 PM
So The NY Times ran a piece that was so inflammatory that several Democratic presidential candidates came out that very day and called for the impeachment of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

A prominent Democratic Congresswoman announced the same day that she would be introducing a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry of Kavanaugh.

And it was all based on a bunch of BS fed to them by a former Clinton attorney, a fact they also conveniently omitted

And no one lost their jobs

1. The man you so sneeringly dismiss as a "Clinton lawyer", a reference replete with implications of dishonesty and dirt, feeding BS to the authors, was a member of Bill Clinton's impeachment defense team, back in the late 90s, when the firm he worked for was hired for the job. Trump's great public legal defender during the impeachment, Alan Dershowitz, was a member of OJ's defense team, back around the same tome. Is his entire, distinguished career and motivation defined by that particular job, in your eyes?
I would add that Stier has also worked for Republicans in the past and has in recent years professionally advised transition teams of both parties during presidential elections. So much so that he features prominently on the topic in the Michael Lewis book that you yourself recommended here on this very thread.
Partisan hack he is not.

2. I agree that James Dao and the Times did not satisfactorily address why they left out the info that Harmon Joyce didn't remember what Stier alleged. The authors suggest that it was somehow deleted when they removed Harmon Joyce's name from the article. Maybe, but it sounds weak.

3. I also, however, do not see how this could be part of some odious conspiracy on the part of the Times as the book from which the article was drawn was coming out a couple of days later and DID have both Harmon Joyce's name and the fact that she didn't recall what Stier alleged. What would be the point?

4. Especially when the (long) article was buried in the Sunday supplement section in the first place and NOT, as you claim, an editorial piece. And more especially when everyone knows that every piece of any article with political implications is picked apart with a fine toothcomb for inconsistencies, weaknesses and lies. This is the Times, not Alex Jones or the Gateway Pundit or other such non-mainstream outlet where most people aren't going to hear or read about it. The only outcome is every going to be the story and the outlet losing credibility.

So you're okay with The NY Times intentionally trying to undermine the legitimacy of a sitting US Supreme Justice with lies, half truths, innuendo and omissions?  Fair enough

Yes, that is clearly what I said. ::)

whitey

Well you sure ties yourself in knots trying to make up excuses for them

Should the people involved have been fired-yes or no?

J70

Quote from: whitey on April 17, 2020, 02:10:22 PM
Well you sure ties yourself in knots trying to make up excuses for them

Should the people involved have been fired-yes or no?

Where have I made excuses?

I said it doesn't make sense to me that in the circumstances in which this story came out that they would deliberately leave out that the woman didn't remember. I've explained why. If you have an issue with my logic, go ahead and address it.

As for firing the editor, I don't know. I'm not familiar with the workings of the industry or how easy/hard it is for ownership/management to sack someone for allowing an error like that, whether intentional or not, to go to publication.

I certainly don't see how the responsible editor, presumably Dao, could have expected much sympathy if he had been fired.

J70

So after a fairly level-headed and cautious speech last night, in which he called for a sensible three step opening up of states at the behest of their own governors (albeit with questions still over the necessary testing), Trump is now calling for the "liberation" of Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia (all with Democratic governors). Whatever "LIBERATE" means. And coincidentally or not, minutes after a feature on Fox News about the conservative protests.



screenexile

Quote from: J70 on April 17, 2020, 07:01:16 PM
So after a fairly level-headed and cautious speech last night, in which he called for a sensible three step opening up of states at the behest of their own governors (albeit with questions still over the necessary testing), Trump is now calling for the "liberation" of Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia (all with Democratic governors). Whatever "LIBERATE" means. And coincidentally or not, minutes after a feature on Fox News about the conservative protests.

Cuomo's fairly got stuck into him today could be good craic tonight!!

whitey

Quote from: screenexile on April 17, 2020, 07:50:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 17, 2020, 07:01:16 PM
So after a fairly level-headed and cautious speech last night, in which he called for a sensible three step opening up of states at the behest of their own governors (albeit with questions still over the necessary testing), Trump is now calling for the "liberation" of Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia (all with Democratic governors). Whatever "LIBERATE" means. And coincidentally or not, minutes after a feature on Fox News about the conservative protests.

Cuomo's fairly got stuck into him today could be good craic tonight!!

Think Cuomo is getting ready to jump in to the Presidential race

J70

Quote from: whitey on April 17, 2020, 08:08:48 PM
Quote from: screenexile on April 17, 2020, 07:50:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 17, 2020, 07:01:16 PM
So after a fairly level-headed and cautious speech last night, in which he called for a sensible three step opening up of states at the behest of their own governors (albeit with questions still over the necessary testing), Trump is now calling for the "liberation" of Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia (all with Democratic governors). Whatever "LIBERATE" means. And coincidentally or not, minutes after a feature on Fox News about the conservative protests.

Cuomo's fairly got stuck into him today could be good craic tonight!!

Think Cuomo is getting ready to jump in to the Presidential race

You think so?

Doubt it myself. He's got his hands full at the moment, and there might be accusations of him neglecting/abandoning his job at a time of dire need.

I would expect himself and Newsom to be too strong runners next time out, when its either Trump or an 82 year old Biden finishing up.

But, August and the convention is a while off. If things are under control and Biden is performing badly or these sexual assault allegations are a factor, you never know.

Eamonnca1

#15728
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 24, 2020, 08:17:15 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 16, 2020, 04:59:46 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 13, 2020, 08:04:29 PM
Okay, sorry for the mishap with the last one, I've fixed it below, and the latest odds are at the bottom:

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 12, 2020, 07:36:24 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 11, 2020, 05:04:22 PM
Quote
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2020, 05:45:48 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2020, 01:35:58 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 02, 2020, 06:30:02 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 28, 2020, 06:17:47 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 27, 2020, 08:43:14 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 25, 2020, 04:56:59 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 24, 2020, 01:00:17 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 22, 2020, 05:25:27 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 20, 2020, 10:40:56 PM
Delegate count:
Buttigieg 22
Sanders 21
Warren 8
Klobuchar 7
Biden 6
Bloomberg 0

Betting odds for 2020 winner:

Trump 8/13
Sanders 4/1
Bloomberg 9/1
Biden 20/1

Bloomberg took a hiding last night. He was like a duck out of water. Warren obliterated him. Will be interesting to see how that affects the polling numbers over the next few days, and if his high burn rate can take the bad look off it. I just wish he'd get out of the race and put his money into something useful like flipping the 4 senate seats we're going to need.
Odds update:
Trump: 8/13
Sanders: 7/2 (3.5/1)
Bloomberg: 8/1
Biden: 22/1

Bernie's odds moving in the right direction. Biden, not so much.

Democratic candidate:
Sanders: 1/1
Bloomberg: 4/1
Buttigieg:8/1
Biden: 9/1

Update:
Delegate count:
Sanders 31
Buttigieg 22
Warren 8
Biden 8
Klobuchar 7
Bloomberg 0

2020 winner:
Trump: 8/13
Sanders: 3/1
Bloomberg: 10/1
Biden: 25/1

Democratic candidate:
Sanders: 5/6
Bloomberg: 4/1
Buttigieg:11/1
Biden: 11/1

Interesting that Chrome still thinks "Buttigieg" is a typo.

2020 winner:
Trump: 8/13
Sanders: 29/10 (2.9/1)
Bloomberg: 10/1
Biden: 28/1

Democratic candidate:
Sanders: 4/5
Bloomberg: 4/1
Biden: 10/1
Buttigieg:12/1

2020 winner:
Trump: 8/13
Sanders: 3/1
Bloomberg: 12/1
Biden: 12/1

Democratic candidate:
Sanders: 10/11
Biden: 4/1
Bloomberg: 11/2
Buttigieg:20/1

Bloomberg and Buttigeig getting it tight.

Bernie's odds are slipping slightly in the general election, but he's still the favourite to get the nomination.

2020 winner:
Trump: 8/13
Sanders: 10/3 (3.3/1)
Biden: 9/1
Bloomberg: 12/1

Democratic candidate:
Sanders: 10/11
Biden: 13/4
Bloomberg: 6/1
Buttigieg:20/1

This stock market crash might throw a spanner in the works. It was this kind of October surprise that worked in Obama's favor in 2008 when "the fundamentals of our economy [were] strong" until they weren't. Trump might cruise to reelection if the economy stays strong, but the coronavirus could change all that.

Get in there Bernie!

Delegate count:
Sanders: 58
Biden: 50
Buttigeig: 26 (I wonder what happens to delegates after a candidate pulls out)
Warren: 8
Klobuchar: 7

2020 winner:
Trump: 4/6
Sanders: 3/1
Biden: 13/2 (6.5/1)
Bloomberg: 16/1

Democratic candidate:
Sanders: 1/1
Biden: 5/2
Bloomberg: 7/1
Hillary Clinton(!): 33/1

This is the first we've seen Trump's odds moving in a while. Could be the coronavirus effect. Damned if I know why they're showing odds for Hillary instead of the likes of Warren or Klobuchar who are actually in the race.

Delegate count:
Biden 664
Sanders 573

2020 winner:
Trump: 4/5
Biden: 13/8 (1.6/1)
Sanders: 16/1

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/7
Sanders: 9/1

2020 winner:
Trump: 10/11
Biden: 6/4
Sanders: 18/1

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/8
Sanders: 9/1

Trump getting it tight. Looking good for Biden if these odds keep moving the way they are. If he puts Warren on his ticket as VP, that should pick up enough Bernie supporters in November. This could be the light at the end of the tunnel.

Delegate count:
Biden 664
Sanders 573

2020 winner:
Trump: 4/5
Biden: 13/8 (1.6/1)
Sanders: 16/1

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/7
Sanders: 9/1
Delegate count:
Biden 857
Sanders 709

2020 winner:
Trump: 10/11 (1/1.1)
Biden: 13/10 (1.3/1)
Sanders: No longer in the top 4

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/14
Sanders: 40/1

2020 winner:
Trump: 1/1
Biden: 15/13
Sanders: 50/1
Deval Patrick: 50/1

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/16
Sanders: 33/1

The trend is unmistakable.

2020 winner:
Trump: 11/10
Biden: 11/10
Sanders: 33/1
Deval Patrick: 33/1

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/12
Sanders: 25/1

Game over for Trump, it seems. Although it's a long way to November, but I'm not sure how he can come back from this. He can't lie or spin his way out of this. Not even Fox News can help him when the dead start piling up.

From what I saw of the debate it looked like Bernie was knocking it out of the park while Joe was wandering off into the weeds.  Still, Bernie seems to be getting it tight now.

2020 winner:
Trump: 11/10
Biden: 11/10
Mike Pence: 33/1
Sanders: 40/1

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/12
Sanders: 40/1

Funny old game.

2020 winner:
Trump: 1/1
Biden: 11/10

WTF is the matter with people?

2020 winner:
Trump: 10/11
Biden: 5/4

Seems like Trump's lash-out-at-the-media-and-shoot-the-messenger strategy is paying off.

But if Biden does get in somehow, I could see him serving one term and then someone like Newsom having a go.

I wouldn't write Biden off yet. It's a long way to November and a lot of dead bodies are going to be piled up between now and then thanks to Donald. A lot will depend on how successful he is in shifting blame away from himself. He'll take credit for anything that goes right and deflect blame for anything that goes wrong, which will play well with the religious crowd who are used to doing that sort of thing with God. I don't know if it'll be enough with swing voters though.

whitey

Well I think most reasonable people aren't blaming him for the Corona virus

Realistically, whoever else was in charge, there would probably have been a similar death count anyway

And NYC is (so far anyway) completely skewing our National number, and one can apportion as much blame to DeBlasio and Coumo for that as you can to Trump

screenexile

Quote from: whitey on April 18, 2020, 01:06:25 AM
Well I think most reasonable people aren't blaming him for the Corona virus

Realistically, whoever else was in charge, there would probably have been a similar death count anyway

And NYC is (so far anyway) completely skewing our National number, and one can apportion as much blame to DeBlasio and Coumo for that as you can to Trump

That's probably fair he hasn't handled it great but then very few have...

If there's a second wave of this thing that hits before November then I can't see any way he gets in.

Saw a clip of Laura Ingraham this evening how vile is she?? I'm surprised Fauci didn't lay into her comparing the Coronavirus to HIV Jesus Christ!!

J70

Quote from: whitey on April 18, 2020, 01:06:25 AM
Well I think most reasonable people aren't blaming him for the Corona virus

Realistically, whoever else was in charge, there would probably have been a similar death count anyway

And NYC is (so far anyway) completely skewing our National number, and one can apportion as much blame to DeBlasio and Coumo for that as you can to Trump

Well he can certainly f**k things up from here on in if today was any guide to how things will proceed.

Has he explained what "liberate" means yet?

Eamonnca1

Quote from: whitey on April 18, 2020, 01:06:25 AM
Well I think most reasonable people aren't blaming him for the Corona virus

Realistically, whoever else was in charge, there would probably have been a similar death count anyway

And NYC is (so far anyway) completely skewing our National number, and one can apportion as much blame to DeBlasio and Coumo for that as you can to Trump

Really? So if Obama were still in charge, do you think he would have been dismissing it as a hoax a few months into the crisis? Do you think Obama would have not bothered reading his intelligence briefings?

You people amaze me with your Houdini-like abilities to wriggle out of any responsibility for your Trump-supporting actions.

whitey

#15733
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 18, 2020, 05:44:12 AM
Quote from: whitey on April 18, 2020, 01:06:25 AM
Well I think most reasonable people aren't blaming him for the Corona virus

Realistically, whoever else was in charge, there would probably have been a similar death count anyway

And NYC is (so far anyway) completely skewing our National number, and one can apportion as much blame to DeBlasio and Coumo for that as you can to Trump

Really? So if Obama were still in charge, do you think he would have been dismissing it as a hoax a few months into the crisis? Do you think Obama would have not bothered reading his intelligence briefings?

You people amaze me with your Houdini-like abilities to wriggle out of any responsibility for your Trump-supporting actions.


Well Nancy Pelosi and DiBlasio sure weren't taking it too seriously either and how many died under Joes watch with H1N1?


https://youtu.be/UcvIQJ-QurQ

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/coronavirus-critic-joe-biden-will-need-to-explain-why-he-didnt-replenish-the-medical-supply-reserve-following-swine-flu-pandemic%3f_amp=true

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailysignal.com/2020/03/25/after-last-pandemic-task-force-advised-obama-to-avert-shortage-of-masks/amp/

J70

Quote from: whitey on April 18, 2020, 07:13:06 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 18, 2020, 05:44:12 AM
Quote from: whitey on April 18, 2020, 01:06:25 AM
Well I think most reasonable people aren't blaming him for the Corona virus

Realistically, whoever else was in charge, there would probably have been a similar death count anyway

And NYC is (so far anyway) completely skewing our National number, and one can apportion as much blame to DeBlasio and Coumo for that as you can to Trump

Really? So if Obama were still in charge, do you think he would have been dismissing it as a hoax a few months into the crisis? Do you think Obama would have not bothered reading his intelligence briefings?

You people amaze me with your Houdini-like abilities to wriggle out of any responsibility for your Trump-supporting actions.


Well Nancy Pelosi and DiBlasio sure weren't taking it too seriously either and how many died under Joes watch with H1N1?


https://youtu.be/UcvIQJ-QurQ

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/coronavirus-critic-joe-biden-will-need-to-explain-why-he-didnt-replenish-the-medical-supply-reserve-following-swine-flu-pandemic%3f_amp=true

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailysignal.com/2020/03/25/after-last-pandemic-task-force-advised-obama-to-avert-shortage-of-masks/amp/

What did Pelosi do to merit an unfavourable comparison to Trump on this subject?

As for the masks, we'll probably never know what happened after 2009, because any investigation into it will end up a partisan blame game.

I do wonder though what effect the right's apocalyptic backlash and campaign about deficits and government spending had on this at the time? Remember the Tea Party and the outrage over the 2009 stimulus and the debt ceiling and Obamacare?

What's the odds that if Biden wins, that by this time next year, Mitch will suddenly be back to talking sternly about deficits and the debt and how we just can't afford these things and we'll have Tea Party 2.0 for the 2022 midterms?