Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

Yeah it really is. .... Because Gary Johnson has no chance of winning and I don't support his plans to:

1. Cut federal spending by 43 percent.
2. End the Federal Reserve
3. Slash defense spending
4. Nominate "strict originalists" to the bench
5. Eliminate the Department of Education
6. End Net Neutrality
7. Build for-profit prisons

 

Goodness ... note the portions of your quote I quoted. I'll be explicit: As re: Herself and the kerfuffles that tend to follow her, it's not one of two things.

 

http://deadsp.in/3N7sYEf

Deadspin (or Jezebel, whatever that is) has picked up on it. Yeah, she's that despicable.

 

Keep in mind this wasn't some slip-up by her. She's getting exactly the reaction she wanted.

 

Did they present evidence? Seems to me, they presented the opinions of a couple of folks, and declared the criticism of the publication to be false.

They also didn't really tell us what the New York Post charged, and they didn't address one of the central charges:

Huma continued to work for her mother’s journal through 2008. She is listed as “assistant editor” on the masthead of the 2002 issue in which her mother suggested the US was doomed to be attacked on 9/11 because of “sanctions” it leveled against Iraq and other “injustices” allegedly heaped on the Muslim world. Here is an excerpt:

“The spiral of violence having continued unabated worldwide, and widely seen to be allowed to continue, was building up intense anger and hostility within the pressure cooker that was kept on a vigorous flame while the lid was weighted down with various kinds of injustices and sanctions . . . It was a time bomb that had to explode and explode it did on September 11, changing in its wake the life and times of the very community and the people it aimed to serve.”

Huma Abedin worked at Muslim journal that opposed women’s rights | New York Post

How do you leave that out? How do you not address it at all?

And, let's look at the weasel words used to absolve the Journal.

1.) The New York Post report cherry-picked quotes. Now, what does that mean? Obviously it means that the quotes are authentic, but that the Washington Post somehow believes them top not be representative of the publication on whole. Maybe that's true, but, I'm not sure the WaPo makes the case, nor do they explain how these uncharacteristic quotes ended up in this staid academic journal.

B.) “That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of articles expressing conservative viewpoints, of course. But I’ve never seen anything in any way radical.” Let's unpack this one. What does "conservative" mean, when we're discussing Islam? Could we see a couple examples of these "conservative" but not "radical" articles?

3.) It's as a “fairly innocuous journal." Why the modifier? Is it innocuous or not? Have there been articles that were not innocuous?

4.) Some (of the articles) are more edgy than others. What the fuck does this mean? What's an "edgy" article in terms of a Muslim Academic journal? Can we see an example of these "edgy" articles?

5.) Most of the articles are written by emerging scholars who are relatively early in their academic careers. So what? What does this have to do with whether or not the content is extreme? Is it? This sounds like an excuse for why some of the content is extreme, not a defense against the charge?

But, the timing was striking to me.

Will the WaPo's fact checker put out a defense of Breitbart News? Will we see them declare that Hillary Clinton "Cherry picked" headlines? Will we see them defend it as "conservative", but not "radical?"

Will Breitbart be described as "fairly innocuous" with some "edgy" articles, that can be explained in part because they hire a lot of young writers, who are relatively early in their careers?

Honestly, this fact check is not thorough. It doesn't address the charges. It doesn't present evidence to the contrary.

It could easily have been written by the Clinton campaign. It's sole purpose is to allow folks to declare this issue as investigated, and settled.

 

Would the WaPo defend the views of Christians who are against all abortions, who are against gay marriage, and who think people should use the public restroom that reflects their anatomy, as conservative, but not radical?

 

Al Sharpton on MSNBC commenting on the charges that Trump is too cozy with racists is the height of hypocrisy.

Candidates should be disavowing the support of a race baiting bigot like Sharpton. Instead, they kiss his ring, and vie for his support, and a mainstream news network employs him to discuss issues of race.

 

Translation: It is wrong because YF doesn't like it. If they were writing about any of those examples at the end of this post, YF would be defending the piece.

 

??

I was pretty clear about why I didn't like it.

They presented the opinion of a couple of folks, and declared it all good.

And, even those opinions were couched, and loaded with weasel words.

I'm not convinced it's not radical, are you?

 

I'm convinced that the only reason you dug into it and the only reason you are attacking it is because you don't like it. If they had gone after Clinton or defended somebody you like with a similar piece, you would be defending it. You have proven time and again that your standards for journalism shift depending on whether or not you like the message in the piece.

Also, you didn't answer Dickie's question. You didn't prove the piece wrong. You called its conclusions into question, but you did not prove it wrong.

 

She always reminds me of the evil ghost that came out of the closet in Poltergeist