President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

So you think she lied to get these jobs or that she shouldn't have just taken her family at their word?

 

Over and over, the people in charge of hiring her have stated it did not factor into any decision to hire her, but we repeated have people who say "C'mon... we know it did."

So despite the constant insistence that we get people on the record, that we not report things simply because they confirm our biases, people who don't like Warren's politics still get to say "But C'mon. We know it did. We know she faked this to advance her career because of course she did."

As a defender of journalism, here is an example of journalism going undefended by our SJ.com ombudsman.

 

Her background was not in the spirit of affirmative action. That’s the criticism.

 

and it's not a legitimate criticism.

 

I meant that I am not familiar enough with the story. I was just repeating the conservative argument, i.e. it wasn’t necessarily that she had lied. He asked what the consensus was. I don’t know what the consensus was.

 

In academia? They're either lying, deluded, or both.

 

As I said, why bother actually interviewing them when the people who dislike her politics get to believe whatever they choose?

 

I'm saying that the idea that her "being" Native American wasn't a significant factor in her rise in academia is nonsense.

 

Those people who said the thing I don't like or agree with must be lying!

 

Again, I'm telling you how this works, and my doing so is independent of my ideological priors. No, I'm not partial to her politics, but if she held the Ayn Rand Chair in Objectivist Law at Harvard Law, my depiction of her academic career would be exactly the same. Harvard Law don't hire Newark-Rutgers ... EVER.

 

Which is a fine point. I grew up in academia, so I'm more familiar with most. But I constantly hear from the defenders of journalism that no one does any journalism, and yet we have journalists asking the actual questions to the people who hired for those positions saying it wasn't a factor. On the record.

So it seems to me the board's most ardent defenders of journalism are perhaps selective in when they chose to defend journalism, and sometimes they would prefer anonymous sources if it actually speaks to their truth.

 

Again: Follow the thread of the conversation. SP asks: “Didn’t her family pass that down to her?” I answered: “Yes, but the criticism is that, even if so, it was b.s. for her to use it as an affirmative action play.” BC then says: “Wasn’t the consensus that she didn’t do that?” Me: “I don’t know.” In other words, I didn’t follow the story closely enough to know the answer to that.

I guess you landed an enormous “gotcha.” I don’t know what it was, but ... Congrats?