President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Your post output should drop significantly now.

 

Probably not. But that wouldn't have helped much, because the White House was busy leaking that she was a drunk to undermine her credibility.

Is the problem here that Nunberg is of no news value? That he was impaired? Both? Neither?

"Former campaign aide defies special investigation subpoena" seems like a fairly solid news story, then or now.

 

"You fondle my trigger then you blame my gun." -- Fiona Apple

Sounds like she's into firearms too.

 

Why does Trump hate democracy?

"Trump administration wants to dismantle Reagan's infrastructure of democracy."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6e60e4605f3_story.html?utm_term=.0d391e461c8c

"Reagan? Total lightweight. Too old for the job. Had hair more suspicious than mine. Am I right, folks? I'm right."

 

I don't think there's any question, except from partisan hacks, whether Nunberg's interviews were newsworthy. A former Trump aide openly speculated that Trump had done something illegal during the election campaign. Um, that's newsworthy. Make it a former Obama aide, and the usual suspects here would be calling it the crime of the century.

In other news, it took me about three years to feel confident that I know what "gaslighting" means. It will take me at least as long to understand the meaning of "virtue signalling."

The language is evolving beyond my means to absorb it. This is a depressing realization for a professional writer to make.

 

Okay. How about 'really low bar for what constitutes an "aide" these days'? The guy was fired twice from the campaign before July 2015.

 

The problem is the uniqueness of a televised interview and its ability to be exploitative. I don’t know Nunberg’s background but I was drawn to the question of whether this situation was handled right. Not so much in a political or journalistic sense (although they both play a role as many of the responses here show), but in a moral sense. Of course, I’m not sure morality has a place in the political/journalism sphere anymore.

 

Counterpoint: He worked for Trump for more than four years.

 

If it's a moral question—and it might well be—then the question rests on public good of the information that might be gleaned during the interview versus the personal welfare of Nunberg. I think you could make both cases, which is why it's such an interesting debate.

 

I’m not arguing about newsworthiness. It “rises” to that level on most counts.

But I don’t care who it is. If you know a person with alcohol issues is drunk and you take advantage of it, you’re in the wrong.

Whether it’s a former aide to the president on television or a sorority girl at 3 a.m. in your bedroom.

 

OK. But they’re not subpoenaing him for no reason.

 

This is a bit like your chief cause: I don't (think I) agree with you, but I respect your opinion on the matter.