President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Regardless, the criticism survives whether or not the play was an actual factor. The joke is that she tried to make that play, allegedly.

 

Well, I'm skeptical that the people who actually "hired" for those positions were actually interviewed (or went on the record). Academia ... it's a weird biz. It's not like Pat in HR actually did the hiring. Even though the offer might have been made by the dean, the dean didn't do the hiring. A committee, recommending to another committee, etc., etc.

I know it seems like I'm being unfair. But I have substantial experience in this stuff, and I know how it works. If you're in academia and you want to hire someone because he/she is a whatever, you can do it without breaking a sweat.

 

And I have never voted for a Republican in a contested election.

 

I'm not landing a gotcha. I'm saying it's clear, especially in the case of my man YF, that sometimes journalism matters and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes he wants anonymous sources, sometimes they're so very unfair. He sees himself as much as a defender of journalism as you are, and since you guys have been declaring yourselves lovers and defenders of journalism of late, you should celebrate that journalists tried to get to the bottom of the Warren controversy.

 

I don’t know that I wouldn’t. I just didn’t know the answer to the question.

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-new...rama-intensifies-as-bill-faces-key-panel-vote

 

Haha.

When we have anonymous claims against Trump, and on the record denials, I’m sure you’ll give him the same benefit of the doubt.

In his case, your take is as meaningful as mine on Michael Sam. This isn’t your area of expertise — nor that of most of the reporters who have found no evidence that her heritage helped her get hired in a series of jobs.

But, someone who does know how this stuff works explains it, and you don’t want to give his expertise any deference.

 

I did give his expertise deference. In fact, I agree with him that it likely played a role in Warren's hiring. Since Doc just explain to us that he and Dick are often not actually believers in the position they publicly argue for (because they enjoy the debate and like to see it to its illogical end) why am I not afforded the same opportunity here?

You're extremely selective in when you stand up for journalism and when you don't. And it's entirely based on ideology. On the other hand, I practically held hands with Dick (or PW2, I can't recall) in destroying that Rolling Stone piece, so you let me know the first time you EVER ride for piece that makes your side look bad in the name of sticking up for good journalism.

 

I think DD is taking exception to me saying “I don’t know” what the consensus was, i.e. he misunderstood me as saying that I didn’t credit the reporting. I just wasn’t aware of it. I dashed off my “I don’t know” reply and left it ambiguous, so that’s on me. I’m trying to clean it up now, for clarity.

 

He didn’t say anything close to that.

It’s admirable what a good friend you are being right now, though.

 

Elizabeth Warren didn't think her parents and grandparents were liars. So for white men (only people who complain) about 50 years later, she's a liar and a fake. No. They're fakes. I worked with Howie for 20 years. He was an iconoclast who morphed into a nihilist who discovered right wing hate monger paid better. You know the Burundi radio hosts who told their audiences to massacre Tutsis? Howie would totally do that if there was in a buck in it for him.

 

Come on, man.