TV news is dropping the ball on Trump

[flockofseagulls104]

Just the fact that she can run for public office after all the scandals she is connected with AND still have a positive image with people like you is puzzling to me.

Perhaps because these "scandals" are a collection of untruths, half truths, rumors, gossip, and speculation that the right wing talk media circuit refuses to let go of after a quarter of a century. With all the enemies that the Clintons have made over the years, many of whom are Republican elected or appointed law enforcement officials and prosecutors, don't you think that somewhere, just one of them would be itching to take down the Clintons over the years and actually filed charges if there was anything to any of these scandals?

It's ironic that the first lie you mention, the one about being shot at was actually debunked rather extensively, thoroughly, and promptly by the mainstream media. And in the grand scheme of things it was a fairly harmless form of puffing. As Bob said, if all politicians who lied or exaggerated were disqualified for office, we wouldn't have anyone since possibly George Washington holding elected office in the country today.

Do you ever actually read what you post?

[flockofseagulls104]

And in the grand scheme of things it was a fairly harmless form of puffing

What if, say Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan or some other republican held a news conference in front of the international press and claimed that he was the actual first man on the moon, not Neil Armstrong? If he did, would you consider that harmless puffing, or would you seriously question his sanity? Don't tell me it's a different situation. She had NO reason to tell that brazen lie, and any sane person would have known they could not get away with it.

[flockofseagulls104]

Politifact has continually held Democrats and other liberals' feet to the fire about incorrect statements they've made, including Clinton and Sanders in the recent election season. And they do extensive research in efforts to determine the veracity of each individual claim.

Please give an example of a case in which you believe Politifact has erred.

I was just curious so I perused Politifact a bit, and I believe it to be more like Politi-slant.

They rated Ted Cruz's statement that the first thing Obama did after elected was embark on an international 'Apology Tour' as a Pants on Fire lie. Well, excuse me, you might not agree with the characterization, but it is a valid metaphor for what he did and said on that international tour. Their basis for saying it was a lie is that some of the left leaning people they asked about it said he did not apologize because he did not use the word "Sorry".

I do not give Politifact any credibility just based on this one rating. It's another pile of bullcrap. Sorry....

[Bob78164]

Politifact has continually held Democrats and other liberals' feet to the fire about incorrect statements they've made, including Clinton and Sanders in the recent election season. And they do extensive research in efforts to determine the veracity of each individual claim.

Please give an example of a case in which you believe Politifact has erred.

I was just curious so I perused Politifact a bit, and I believe it to be more like Politi-slant.

They rated Ted Cruz's statement that the first thing Obama did after elected was embark on an international 'Apology Tour' as a Pants on Fire lie. Well, excuse me, you might not agree with the characterization, but it is a valid metaphor for what he did and said on that international tour. Their basis for saying it was a lie is that some of the left leaning people they asked about it said he did not apologize because he did not use the word "Sorry".

I do not give Politifact any credibility just based on this one rating. It's another pile of bullcrap. Sorry....

Which words did President Obama use that you contend made it an "apology tour"? Here's the transcript of his speech.

By the way, CNN reached the same conclusion as PolitiFact. --Bob

[BackInTex]

I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

He conveys a "greeting of peace" from only 0.6% of the country. Nice.

America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Except for the small minority of humans that happen to be women.

[flockofseagulls104]

By the way, CNN reached the same conclusion as PolitiFact. --Bob

Thanks for your validation.

[flockofseagulls104]

Politifact has continually held Democrats and other liberals' feet to the fire about incorrect statements they've made, including Clinton and Sanders in the recent election season. And they do extensive research in efforts to determine the veracity of each individual claim.

Please give an example of a case in which you believe Politifact has erred.

I was just curious so I perused Politifact a bit, and I believe it to be more like Politi-slant.

They rated Ted Cruz's statement that the first thing Obama did after elected was embark on an international 'Apology Tour' as a Pants on Fire lie. Well, excuse me, you might not agree with the characterization, but it is a valid metaphor for what he did and said on that international tour. Their basis for saying it was a lie is that some of the left leaning people they asked about it said he did not apologize because he did not use the word "Sorry".

I do not give Politifact any credibility just based on this one rating. It's another pile of bullcrap. Sorry....

Which words did President Obama use that you contend made it an "apology tour"? Here's the transcript of his speech.

By the way, CNN reached the same conclusion as PolitiFact. --Bob

Just for the purposes of trying to educate you.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... superpower

There are many words in there that qualify as blaming previous administrations of poor judgement and/or bad actions. But Obama's here now, so we will be better.
Maybe you don't see it or acknowledge it, but a good percentage of the country see it that as apologizing for what he believes are our shortcomings. Just because Politifact and CNN don't see it that way does not give them the authority to label it a lie.

That is an answer to your challenge to provide specific examples. Now prove me wrong.

[silverscreenselect]

They rated Ted Cruz's statement that the first thing Obama did after elected was embark on an international 'Apology Tour' as a Pants on Fire lie. Well, excuse me, you might not agree with the characterization, but it is a valid metaphor for what he did and said on that international tour. Their basis for saying it was a lie is that some of the left leaning people they asked about it said he did not apologize because he did not use the word "Sorry".

I do not give Politifact any credibility just based on this one rating. It's another pile of bullcrap. Sorry....

Here's what Politifact had to say:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme ... logy-tour/

John Murphy, a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, studies presidential rhetoric and political language. He said Obama is using conciliatory language for diplomatic purposes, not apologizing.

"It's much more a sense of establishing of reciprocity," Murphy said. "Each side says, okay, we haven't done great, but we have a new president and we're going to make a fresh start and move forward. I don't think that's an apology. ... In rhetorical history, an apology is generally considered an account of some kind of bad behavior in which you are going to take responsibility and express regret."

Romney's criticisms of Obama are part of a conservative tradition that emphasizes steadfastness in foreign policy, particularly in the wake of the Vietnam War. "There's long been a strain of conservative rhetoric that argues that what matters most for the United States in the world is our will," Murphy said. "The difficulty with that was shown in the second Bush administration, when will power is not quite enough. In Iraq, for example, you have to have a battle plan that makes sense and understand the situation you're going into'' and have enough resources to do that.

Lauren Bloom, an attorney and business consultant, wrote the book The Art of the Apology, advising businesses and individuals on when to apologize and how to do it.

She said Obama's words fall short of an apology, mostly because he didn't use the words "sorry" or "regret." "I think to make an effective apology, the words 'I'm sorry' or 'we're sorry' always have to be there," Bloom said.

Obama's remarks are really non-apologies, and they're not good in business or personal relationships, Bloom said. The one area where they can be useful: international diplomacy.

"Gov. Romney is trying to appeal to the inner John Wayne of his readers, and that has a certain emotional appeal," Bloom said. "For the rest of us, a level assessment of less-than-perfect human behavior is perfectly reasonable."

Obama's Cairo address in particular was a means of reaching out to the Islamic world, not an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, she said. "Whether he's apologizing or not, he's saying, 'I respect your society, and I respect your customs.' Maybe that's what Romney considers an apology, that gesture of respect," she said. "But a gesture of respect is not an apology."

That's the whole point of not using the words "I'm sorry" or "I apologize." It's as pointed a statement that you can make to someone that you're trying to reach out to them but you're not apologizing. Republicans are masters at the non-apology apology.

Politifact went on to say:

Obama made no secret during the campaign that he intended to set a different course on foreign policy than Bush -- a committed unilateralist -- had pursued.

Yet it’s incorrect to portray these early speeches as part of a global apology tour. Using this standard, you could argue that any change in foreign policy that’s undertaken after a presidential transition and announced to the world would constitute an "apology" for the previous policy.

Obama's speeches contained criticisms of past U.S. actions, but not one full-throated apology. Cruz’s debate claim is so far off the mark, it’s ridiculous. Pants on Fire!

Opinions like you, Ted Cruz, and Mitt Romney have are one reason why Republican foreign policy is usually a belligerent mess, one that Donald Trump would exponentially worsen.

[silverscreenselect]

Except for the small minority of humans that happen to be women.

Of all the things I've heard you get "upset" about, this is probably the most hilarious.

The concern of the entire Republican party for women, when assembled, could fit in a thimble.

[silverscreenselect]

And in the grand scheme of things it was a fairly harmless form of puffing

What if, say Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan or some other republican held a news conference in front of the international press and claimed that he was the actual first man on the moon, not Neil Armstrong? If he did, would you consider that harmless puffing, or would you seriously question his sanity? Don't tell me it's a different situation. She had NO reason to tell that brazen lie, and any sane person would have known they could not get away with it.

You are aware that politicians don't write most of their own speeches, especially when they are delivering multiple speeches a day during campaigns. That statement was originally in prepared comments. It was wrong to make the statement and Hillary got appropriately called on the carpet, but to conflate it to the same level as a serious claim about the moon landing is ridiculous. And it's emblematic of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, which goes through every little thing Bill and Hillary did or did not do and attempts to attribute earth shattering importance to that.

It's similar to the statements about the "apology tour." You may not like it (I didn't like it all that much), but the 2008 election was the most significant mandate for change that the American voters have issued since the 1964 election. They repudiated both the Bush foreign and domestic policy, and Obama signaled that with his foreign trip. I also don't think he handled it the best way he could, but it wasn't an apology tour but rather a "new kid in town" tour. And when the US was held in as low regard as it was in most of the world in 2008, we needed to make some gestures to the rest of the world.

And you fail to see that this type of right wing mindset is exactly what has produced Donald Trump. He's a born huckster and marketer and what he's doing is channeling the message that Republicans have been sending for the last quarter of a century more effectively than most of them have.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

[flockofseagulls104]

And you fail to see that this type of right wing mindset is exactly what has produced Donald Trump.

What produced Donald Trump are Hillary Clinton and those like her. She is the epitome of the type of elitist, arrogant and self entitled politician that needs to be purged from government. Unfortunately, he is way past the other end.

[silverscreenselect]

She is the epitome of the type of elitist, arrogant and self entitled politician that needs to be purged from government.

I'm curious in your mind just what politicians, if any, aren't elitist, arrogant, and self-entitled. I'm sure it will be a very short list.

[flockofseagulls104]

She is the epitome of the type of elitist, arrogant and self entitled politician that needs to be purged from government.

I'm curious in your mind just what politicians, if any, aren't elitist, arrogant, and self-entitled. I'm sure it will be a very short list.

I'll give you 2 examples:

Ted Cruz stood his ground in opposing subsidies for corn ethanol in Iowa, standing up to the Governor there. He did not pander. He still won. He has principles.
Unlike Hillary Clinton who says she wants to shut down the coal industry to one audience (As if she, as President should have the power to do so), and then claims it was a misstatement and taken out of context to a WV Voter.

Ted Cruz spends 10 minutes talking directly to a group of Trump Head protesters and tries to reason with them, specifically to one brain dead representative of the group. He does so respectfully and patiently.
Hell would freeze over before Hillary Clinton would expose herself to anyone who wasn't hand picked by her advisors.


This is my opinion. You can spout your opinion, SSS if you want, but I'll write out on a piece of paper exactly what I expect you to say in response to this and compare it when you respond. I'll bet I'll get it pretty much word for word.

[Bob78164]

She is the epitome of the type of elitist, arrogant and self entitled politician that needs to be purged from government.

I'm curious in your mind just what politicians, if any, aren't elitist, arrogant, and self-entitled. I'm sure it will be a very short list.

I'll give you 2 examples:

Ted Cruz stood his ground in opposing subsidies for corn ethanol in Iowa, standing up to the Governor there. He did not pander. He still won. He has principles.
Unlike Hillary Clinton who says she wants to shut down the coal industry to one audience (As if she, as President should have the power to do so), and then claims it was a misstatement and taken out of context to a WV Voter.

Ted Cruz spends 10 minutes talking directly to a group of Trump Head protesters and tries to reason with them, specifically to one brain dead representative of the group. He does so respectfully and patiently.
Hell would freeze over before Hillary Clinton would expose herself to anyone who wasn't hand picked by her advisors.


This is my opinion. You can spout your opinion, SSS if you want, but I'll write out on a piece of paper exactly what I expect you to say in response to this and compare it when you respond. I'll bet I'll get it pretty much word for word.

From where I stand, trying to (a) shut down the U.S. government, and (b) create an unnecessary debt default, both of which would damage millions of people, for no reason other than naked political opportunism, is pretty damn arrogant.

As for your belief about who Secretary Clinton will and won't speak to . . . once again, your innuendo is completely unsupported by evidence. Hell, I'll bet she'd even speak to you. You probably wouldn't enjoy the process -- I'm pretty sure you'd get pwned.

As for your claims about her statements on coal, check the actual transcript and try to reconcile it with how you characterize her statements. You can't. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

From where I stand, trying to (a) shut down the U.S. government, and (b) create an unnecessary debt default, both of which would damage millions of people, for no reason other than naked political opportunism, is pretty damn arrogant.

As for your belief about who Secretary Clinton will and won't speak to . . . once again, your innuendo is completely unsupported by evidence. Hell, I'll bet she'd even speak to you. You probably wouldn't enjoy the process -- I'm pretty sure you'd get pwned.

As for your claims about her statements on coal, check the actual transcript and try to reconcile it with how you characterize her statements. You can't. --Bob

I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong about Politifact and CNN, Bob. What gives them the authority to pronounce someone's opinion a blatant lie?

I saw and read her statements. Yes, she said that we shouldn't forget about those people. What good will it do for them to remember them once you have taken away their livelihood? An empty disclaimer. We all know what she wants to do, Bob. And with the out of control EPA under her control, she could do it.

I would love to see her go one on one with a glib, intelligent person who disagrees with her who is not a member of the press. She would NEVER do that, and you know that as well as I do. I would have loved to see her go against Cruz or Fiorina. Trump will just childishly insult her.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/ ... d=24347054

[Bob78164]

I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong about Politifact and CNN, Bob. What gives them the authority to pronounce someone's opinion a blatant lie?

We're not talking about opinions. We're talking about facts. Either President Obama apologized or he didn't. Romney (and others) said he did. The transcript proves that he didn't. If you think I'm wrong, quote the actual words in the transcript that constitute an apology. If you can't, admit that your disbelief is unsupported by actual facts.

You picked one example (of hundreds) and said you don't believe it. I gave you ready access to the underlying facts and challenged you to support your disbelief. I'm still waiting.

But this thread is about Trump. The point is that TV news has been letting him get away with repeated misstatements -- lies that he's already been called on in the print media -- because they're too lazy to prepare for the interview by learning the facts or too cowardly to call him out. That has to change. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

We're not talking about opinions. We're talking about facts. Either President Obama apologized or he didn't. Romney (and others) said he did. The transcript proves that he didn't.

When someone goes to another country and tells them we've dictated to them in the past, and we've "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" to them in the past, when he tells another country that with him as President, America will "be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made...", I would classify that as apologizing to those countries for the bad people who have run the country before we finally had the sense to elect him. Not only apologizing, but insulting to previous administrations.

But that is my opinion and that of many others. You may not agree with that opinion, and that is your right. But what you state is not proof, Bob, it is your differing opinion. Perhaps as a lawyer, you can try and understand the difference. For Politifact and CNN to decide unilaterally that someone's opinion is a lie is not only invalid, it brings their motives into question.

But this thread is about Trump. The point is that TV news has been letting him get away with repeated misstatements -- lies that he's already been called on in the print media -- because they're too lazy to prepare for the interview by learning the facts or too cowardly to call him out. That has to change.

Once again, Bob, I agree with you about Trump. He has been given a pass by the MSM in exactly the way you say he has. Welcome to the club. What you are frustrated about is that he is being given the same treatment that is given to Democrats by the MSM. Generally, it's only Republicans and/or Conservatives who are subject to actual journalistic examination by the MSM. Hillary and her husband have benefitted from that same pass from the media throughout their careers, as have most, if not all, Democrat icons. So you now understand what it's like to watch the media be biased for the people you disagree with. Congratuations.

[silverscreenselect]

Generally, it's only Republicans and/or Conservatives who are subject to actual journalistic examination by the MSM.

Politifact gave Hillary's statement about being under fire in Bosnia a "Pants on Fire" rating.

What you can't get over is that reputable journalists, which leaves out organizations like Fox News and Breitbart, actually fact check and know the differences between facts and opinions. Whether or not Obama said "I apologize" or "I'm sorry" is a fact. Whether what he said was equivalent to an apology is an opinion. And one that those familiar with diplomacy disagree with you on. But then again, you're used to disagreeing with those who actually have expertise on a subject.

[flockofseagulls104]

Generally, it's only Republicans and/or Conservatives who are subject to actual journalistic examination by the MSM.

Politifact gave Hillary's statement about being under fire in Bosnia a "Pants on Fire" rating.

What you can't get over is that reputable journalists, which leaves out organizations like Fox News and Breitbart, actually fact check and know the differences between facts and opinions. Whether or not Obama said "I apologize" or "I'm sorry" is a fact. Whether what he said was equivalent to an apology is an opinion. And one that those familiar with diplomacy disagree with you on. But then again, you're used to disagreeing with those who actually have expertise on a subject.

What's the meaning of 'Is'?

[flockofseagulls104]

Generally, it's only Republicans and/or Conservatives who are subject to actual journalistic examination by the MSM.

Politifact gave Hillary's statement about being under fire in Bosnia a "Pants on Fire" rating.

What you can't get over is that reputable journalists, which leaves out organizations like Fox News and Breitbart, actually fact check and know the differences between facts and opinions. Whether or not Obama said "I apologize" or "I'm sorry" is a fact. Whether what he said was equivalent to an apology is an opinion. And one that those familiar with diplomacy disagree with you on. But then again, you're used to disagreeing with those who actually have expertise on a subject.

You are trying to refute my statements. You have written several posts to try and refute what I say. I might say you have been on a campaign to refute me.

But you have not written, to my knowledge, the word 'refute' in any of those posts.

You must, then, agree with me, right?

This is the logic you are using.

[Bob Juch]

No matter who wins I'm probably moving to Belize.

[flockofseagulls104]

No matter who wins I'm probably moving to Belize.

Legally or illegally?

[Bob78164]

Generally, it's only Republicans and/or Conservatives who are subject to actual journalistic examination by the MSM.

Politifact gave Hillary's statement about being under fire in Bosnia a "Pants on Fire" rating.

What you can't get over is that reputable journalists, which leaves out organizations like Fox News and Breitbart, actually fact check and know the differences between facts and opinions. Whether or not Obama said "I apologize" or "I'm sorry" is a fact. Whether what he said was equivalent to an apology is an opinion. And one that those familiar with diplomacy disagree with you on. But then again, you're used to disagreeing with those who actually have expertise on a subject.

You are trying to refute my statements. You have written several posts to try and refute what I say. I might say you have been on a campaign to refute me.

But you have not written, to my knowledge, the word 'refute' in any of those posts.

You must, then, agree with me, right?

This is the logic you are using.

Saying "we've got room for improvement and so do you" isn't even close to an "apology" in any sense of the word used by (non-political) native speakers of English. Don't believe me? Try using the former tactic when your wife wants an apology and report back on what happens. (If you're still around to do so.) --Bob