Political Randomness

[Rip]

saying your kid is going to die and we won't let you take them somewhere else because.....what? Because they will die? Because it won't work? It is just bullcrap.

Because the false hope isn't supported by medical science? Or that the risks of treatment outweigh the chance of success? Or the provider is more interested in profit/publicity than care? That's not bullcrap, it's acting in the patient's best interests.

Once you say you can't help my child then you best get the hell out of my way when I seek someone else to help them. I can't even imagine the extremes I would go through to get my child to the care I believe they needed no matter who or what stood in the way.

Says the guy who doesn't believe in insurance and wants the ambulance to leave him to die.

The kid is supposedly dying, so what risk exactly outweigh the chance of success? Will he die twice or something. Is being more interested in profit/publicity acting in the patient's best interest. They aren't worried about the child's or the parent's best interest, like most bearacracies they are worried about what is in the best interest of the bureaucracy.

[malchior]

Even when death is an overwhelming certainty there is an interest to not subjecting a kid to unnecessary pain and suffering. I agree that the parents are the best stakeholder to decide up until their self-interest conflicts with the childs. That I believe is the argument.

And without the detail I will assume that is the case without blindly assuming that this is all about dogmatic beliefs that hinge on the detriments of government or bureaucracy. That could be the case but that falls apart for me when multiple courts get involved and decide these actions aren't in the child's interest.

[Blackhawk]

From what I'm reading:

The kid gets sick.

The parents are told there is no hope. Permanent damage has already been done, it is already too late, and he should be allowed to die.

A doctor in the US gets involved, suggesting that there may be a treatment.

The treatment isn't just experimental, it has literally never been tested on this disease, not even in animals. It has only been used on 18 humans for a different, but similar disease.

The doctor made this offer without ever examining the child or without seeing his full medical chart.

The UK says no to the treatment, because there is absolutely no reason to expect it to work.

Legal challenges are made.

The doctor with the treatment then flies to England.

The doctor examines the child and the scans, determines that, no, the treatment wouldn't work after all.

Legal challenges are withdrawn.


----------------------------------------------

There absolutely are questions here. Should a parent's emotional desperation be allowed to overrule medial experts, for instance. The biggest ethical question, from my perspective, is whether doctors should offer 'miracle cures' to desperate parents without any particular reason to expect results.

Of course, the opening premise of the originally quoted 'article',

"Britain is giving us a vivid, tragic sense of how dangerous and heartless government tyranny can be once God is rejected and there is nothing between us and the government."

has nothing to do with anything, save to warn us of the author's bias.

[Fitzy]

Die with dignity

A progressive neurodegenerative disorder has so corroded his brain that, in the words of high court judge, Mr Justice Hayden, a recent MRI scan shows “a brain that had been almost entirely wiped out”

the NHS has kept Alfie alive for nearly two years, at no cost to his family, and without any judgments concerning the value of his life. But intensive care is only ever a temporary support for failing organs while a reversible pathology is treated. In Alfie’s case, multiple doctors from multiple countries have all agreed that his illness is irreversible, progressive and terminal. Withdrawal of care is therefore neither killing nor murder, but enables him to die with comfort and dignity.

Alfie wasn't dying. He was already dead. There was no chance of him recovering. None. The doctors tried for two years and could not save him. His brain was gone.

The media and outside groups should have stayed out and let the parents grieve, the hospital was willing to allow them time, but not false hope. The fucking morons offering them false hope have just extended the grief of the parents. I get that no parent wants to lose a child, but the Catholic Church and other "prolife" groups peddling the "life at all costs" crap are doing nothing but harm. For a group supposedly dedicated to love, they are willing to inflict a lot of pain.

Our society needs to learn the difference between saving a life and saving a body.

[Max Peck]

Big Brother will have a name: Sinclair.

A new IP-based broadcast technology is being rolled out which will enable local television broadcasters to track consumers and serve targeted advertisements the same way Facebook, Google and YouTube already do.

The new technology, called “next Gen TV,” promises to revolutionize broadcast TV by modernizing over the air video delivery for the 21st century, and bringing data-driven advertising solutions to antenna TV broadcasts.

Next Gen TV is supported by the new standard ATSC 3.0, an update from the current antiquated ATSC 1.0 standard. [2] After five years of development, ATSC 3.0 saw its first commercial deployments earlier this year, three months after the FCC gave the OK for broadcasters to begin updating their infrastructure to support it.

Sinclair Broadcast Group is a major backer of next gen TV. Sinclair has invested over $30 million in Next Gen technology, and holds a handful of patents that are baked into the ATSC 3.0 standard.

In fact, Sinclair executives have routinely stated that ATSC 3.0 — and the new advancements in advertising technology for linear TV — will lay the foundation of Sinclair’s future growth strategy, encompassing terrestrial broadcast, Internet-delivered video, subscription services and even video delivery to connected cars.

But the technology will also give Sinclair — the largest broadcaster in the US — unprecedented access to viewer data. As Sinclair executive chairman David Smith described in a recent interview

“We’ll know where you are, who you are, and what you’re doing — just like you do now, just like everybody does now, the Internet does, or Google, or a Facebook. We will have perfect data all the time.”

Sinclair Broadcast Group

Sinclair has faced scrutiny from media critics, as well as some of its station employees, for the conservative slant of their stations' news reporting and other programming decisions, and how the company's rapid growth has aided its dissemination of content that appeal to these views. Sinclair has also faced criticism over business practices that circumvent concentration of media ownership regulations, particularly the use of local marketing agreements, accusations that the company had been currying favor with the Trump administration in order to loosen these rules and about its management lacking diversity and being totally controlled by a single family. Critics including former news anchor Dan Rather have described Sinclair's practices as being "an assault on our democracy" by disseminating what they perceive to be Orwellian-like propaganda to its local stations.

[Remus West]

Am I the only one confused regarding the uproar over the Michelle Wolfe's speech? The parts I have read are very funny and do not seem all that offensive to me. Particularly the ones regarding SHS. The idea that those are twisted into insults about her looks rather than insulting commentary regarding her ethics boggles my mind.

[Trent Steel]

Am I the only one confused regarding the uproar over the Michelle Wolfe's speech? The parts I have read are very funny and do not seem all that offensive to me. Particularly the ones regarding SHS. The idea that those are twisted into insults about her looks rather than insulting commentary regarding her ethics boggles my mind.

I'm with you on the the so-called "outrage" from the right over this. Isn't this just acceptable locker room talk?

And I thought Michelle's routine was funny and spot-on.

[El Guapo]

Am I the only one confused regarding the uproar over the Michelle Wolfe's speech? The parts I have read are very funny and do not seem all that offensive to me. Particularly the ones regarding SHS. The idea that those are twisted into insults about her looks rather than insulting commentary regarding her ethics boggles my mind.

I'm with you on the the so-called "outrage" from the right over this. Isn't this just acceptable locker room talk?

And I thought Michelle's routine was funny and spot-on.

It's practically its own tradition at this point to hire a comedian for the white house correspondents dinner and then tut tut at the comedian's jokes.

I listened to her routine this morning - pretty good. I like Wolf a lot in general. It used some coarse language at times, but that stuff is emanating from the White House these days, so...

[Trent Steel]

...but that stuff is emanating from the White House these days, so...

That's what makes the so-called outrage laughable.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I think a lot of the outrage was due to Maggie Hagerman at the NYT tweeting that Wolf's attacks on SHS's looks were disgusting. The story seemed to get a lot of traction from that tweet. The problem is, Wolf never made comments about SHS's looks and when asked to specify the line that Haberman found so offensive, she didn't reply (see her back and forth on Twitter with Kumail Nanjiani who asked her for the line). My guess is that Haberman misheard the line "SHS burns facts for her shadow eye" as "burns fat as her shadow eye" (which doesn't make much sense), or that she doesn't know what shadow eye means. Either way, seems an uproar over nothing.

[Holman]

There's been a lot of outrage and nonplussery about Wolf "making fun of Sarah Sanders' appearance." I didn't see the speech, so I was expecting jokes about she was fat or ugly or something similarly nasty.

Instead, as far as I can tell from the full transcript, this is everything she said about SHS:

And, of course, we have Sarah Huckabee Sanders. We're graced with Sarah's presence tonight. I have to say I'm a little star-struck. I love you as Aunt Lydia in “The Handmaid's Tale.”

Mike Pence, if you haven't seen it, you would love it.

Every time Sarah steps up to the podium, I get excited because I'm not really sure what we're going to get: you know, a press briefing, a bunch of lies or divided into softball teams. “It's shirts and skins, and this time, don't be such a little b----, Jim Acosta.”

I actually really like Sarah. I think she's very resourceful. Like, she burns facts, and then she uses the ash to create a perfect smoky eye. Like, maybe she's born with it; maybe it's lies.

It's probably lies.

And I'm never really sure what to call Sarah Huckabee Sanders. You know, is it Sarah Sanders? Is Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Is it Cousin Huckabee? Is it Auntie Huckabee Sanders? Like, what's Uncle Tom but for white women who disappoint other white women? Oh, I know: Aunt Coulter.

So where is the mockery of her appearance? Is it to reference to her makeup? It's been a while since I regularly read women's magazines, but my impression is that "perfect smoky eye" is actually a makeup achievement to be envied.

As far as I can tell, Wolf is mocking SHS for her lies, not her appearance. There's... a difference.

Of course I kind of wonder whether some of the pushback from mainstream punditry stems from this:

You guys are obsessed with Trump. Did you used to date him? Because you pretend like you hate him, but I think you love him. I think what no one in this room wants to admit is that Trump has helped all of you. He couldn't sell steaks or vodka or water or college or ties or Eric, but he has helped you.

He's helped you sell your papers and your books and your TV. You helped create this monster, and now you're profiting off of him. And if you're gonna profit off of Trump, you should at least give him some money because he doesn't have any.

EDIT: Ninja'd by R-W

[Captain Caveman]

Our press corp still doesn't grasp the perilous nature of the current moment. The WH attacks the free press relentlessly everyday to the point that the majority of Repubicans now agree that the press is the "enemy of the people", and reporters are still policing tone and civility... by a comedian no less, as if that matters one whit. I guess they gotta keep that sweet, sweet access to maintain an audience and keep the clicks coming.

[Holman]

A tweet I saw:

Imagine supporting Roy Moore but being offended by Wolf's jokes.

[Kraken]

Our press corp still doesn't grasp the perilous nature of the current moment. The WH attacks the free press relentlessly everyday to the point that the majority of Repubicans now agree that the press is the "enemy of the people", and reporters are still policing tone and civility... by a comedian no less, as if that matters one whit. I guess they gotta keep that sweet, sweet access to maintain an audience and keep the clicks coming.

The problem is that it reinforces the Trumpsters' accusations that the media are out to get them and should be muzzled, while undermining the journalists' paeans to the 1st amendment. It was counterproductive at a time when the press needs to be seen taking the high road.

The jokes were no more offensive than one hears in any comedy club, but they were mean-spirited and inappropriate in that context. They also weren't very funny IMO. I turned the video off after 10 minutes because I didn't like the comedian.

[El Guapo]

Our press corp still doesn't grasp the perilous nature of the current moment. The WH attacks the free press relentlessly everyday to the point that the majority of Repubicans now agree that the press is the "enemy of the people", and reporters are still policing tone and civility... by a comedian no less, as if that matters one whit. I guess they gotta keep that sweet, sweet access to maintain an audience and keep the clicks coming.

The problem is that it reinforces the Trumpsters' accusations that the media are out to get them and should be muzzled, while undermining the journalists' paeans to the 1st amendment. It was counterproductive at a time when the press needs to be seen taking the high road.

The jokes were no more offensive than one hears in any comedy club, but they were mean-spirited and inappropriate in that context. They also weren't very funny IMO. I turned the video off after 10 minutes because I didn't like the comedian.

I dunno. I don't think it really makes a difference for the Trumpsters' accusations. The main reason why they think that the media is out to get Trump and the conservatives is that Trump himself has been saying that, and conservatives have been arguing that for decades, and constructed a media empire around that notion. Michelle Wolf's jokes aren't going to move the needle on that one way or another.

I will say, though, that Trump's not wrong about the WHCD being a stupid thing that deserves to die.

[Kraken]

Our press corp still doesn't grasp the perilous nature of the current moment. The WH attacks the free press relentlessly everyday to the point that the majority of Repubicans now agree that the press is the "enemy of the people", and reporters are still policing tone and civility... by a comedian no less, as if that matters one whit. I guess they gotta keep that sweet, sweet access to maintain an audience and keep the clicks coming.

The problem is that it reinforces the Trumpsters' accusations that the media are out to get them and should be muzzled, while undermining the journalists' paeans to the 1st amendment. It was counterproductive at a time when the press needs to be seen taking the high road.

The jokes were no more offensive than one hears in any comedy club, but they were mean-spirited and inappropriate in that context. They also weren't very funny IMO. I turned the video off after 10 minutes because I didn't like the comedian.

I dunno. I don't think it really makes a difference for the Trumpsters' accusations. The main reason why they think that the media is out to get Trump and the conservatives is that Trump himself has been saying that, and conservatives have been arguing that for decades, and constructed a media empire around that notion. Michelle Wolf's jokes aren't going to move the needle on that one way or another.

I will say, though, that Trump's not wrong about the WHCD being a stupid thing that deserves to die.

It's never smart to hand ammunition to the guy training a gun on you, even if you're fairly sure it's the kind that only shoots a "bang!" flag.

It's a minor kerfuffle anyway. As you observed, enabling Trump to say "see? SEE?" won't change anything. The WHCD dates to a time when the WH and the press were more congenial adversaries who at least respected one another's roles sufficiently to break bread together for one night a year. IDK that such a longstanding tradition should be killed outright, but it could certainly be suspended until mutual respect is at least possible again. The comedy segment would not be sorely missed.

[El Guapo]

Our press corp still doesn't grasp the perilous nature of the current moment. The WH attacks the free press relentlessly everyday to the point that the majority of Repubicans now agree that the press is the "enemy of the people", and reporters are still policing tone and civility... by a comedian no less, as if that matters one whit. I guess they gotta keep that sweet, sweet access to maintain an audience and keep the clicks coming.

The problem is that it reinforces the Trumpsters' accusations that the media are out to get them and should be muzzled, while undermining the journalists' paeans to the 1st amendment. It was counterproductive at a time when the press needs to be seen taking the high road.

The jokes were no more offensive than one hears in any comedy club, but they were mean-spirited and inappropriate in that context. They also weren't very funny IMO. I turned the video off after 10 minutes because I didn't like the comedian.

I dunno. I don't think it really makes a difference for the Trumpsters' accusations. The main reason why they think that the media is out to get Trump and the conservatives is that Trump himself has been saying that, and conservatives have been arguing that for decades, and constructed a media empire around that notion. Michelle Wolf's jokes aren't going to move the needle on that one way or another.

I will say, though, that Trump's not wrong about the WHCD being a stupid thing that deserves to die.

It's never smart to hand ammunition to the guy training a gun on you, even if you're fairly sure it's the kind that only shoots a "bang!" flag.

It's a minor kerfuffle anyway. As you observed, enabling Trump to say "see? SEE?" won't change anything. The WHCD dates to a time when the WH and the press were more congenial adversaries who at least respected one another's roles sufficiently to break bread together for one night a year. IDK that such a longstanding tradition should be killed outright, but it could certainly be suspended until mutual respect is at least possible again. The comedy segment would not be sorely missed.

The other thing is that Wolf made several jokes about the uncomfortable relationship between the press and the administration, wherein the journalists by and large hate Trump, but enabled his rise and are codependent upon him. You sort of wonder if that uncomfortable truth is at least partially behind their kvetching about Wolf supposedly attacking Sanders's appearance (when she didn't actually do that).

[Skinypupy]

New GOP talking point: journalists have no business pointing out Trump's lies because that makes his supporters uncomfortable.

“We have political disagreements in this country, and I think it’s wrong for journalists to take that next step,” Schlapp said. “Just present the facts. Let the American people decide if they think someone is lying. The journalist shouldn’t be the one to say the president or his spokesperson is lying, because what that does is to 50 percent of the country, is it makes them feel like they aren’t credible to listen to anymore.”

Difficulty: Trying to say with a straight face that anything coming out of the WH is ever a "fact".

[Holman]

"The press shouldn't say the rulers are lying" ought to send a chill down the spine of every American regardless of political affiliation.

But here we are. This is how it is done.

[Skinypupy]

"The press shouldn't say the rulers are lying" ought to send a chill down the spine of every American regardless of political affiliation.

But here we are. This is how it is done.

While it’s horrifying that we’re at the point where leaders are saying this out loud, it’s the fact that so many people are simply nodding along in agreement because “their team” would benefit that makes me pretty sure we’re headed for a really bad place as a country.

[El Guapo]

"The press shouldn't say the rulers are lying" ought to send a chill down the spine of every American regardless of political affiliation.

But here we are. This is how it is done.

While it’s horrifying that we’re at the point where leaders are saying this out loud, it’s the fact that so many people are simply nodding along in agreement because “their team” would benefit that makes me pretty sure we’re headed for a really bad place as a country.

The thing is that there are a lot of mainstream journalists who essentially believe this - that they should basically just report each sides arguments, and not say whether one side / politician is lying, because that makes them partisan / nonobjective. It's something that Trump skillfully exploited during the campaign.

[Zarathud]

Wolf did her usual comedy schtick -- bitchy women's locker room talk. If you don't like that act, don't book the talent.

Besides, every few years, the bar is raised on how to offend the White House Correspondents. Colbert in 2006, Seth Myers in 2011, Larry Wilmore in 2016, Hasan Minaj in 2017, and now Michelle Wolf.

[Kraken]

"The press shouldn't say the rulers are lying" ought to send a chill down the spine of every American regardless of political affiliation.

But here we are. This is how it is done.

While it’s horrifying that we’re at the point where leaders are saying this out loud, it’s the fact that so many people are simply nodding along in agreement because “their team” would benefit that makes me pretty sure we’re headed for a really bad place as a country.

The thing is that there are a lot of mainstream journalists who essentially believe this - that they should basically just report each sides arguments, and not say whether one side / politician is lying, because that makes them partisan / nonobjective. It's something that Trump skillfully exploited during the campaign.

Historically journalists are taught to be conduits for accurate information without bias, comment, or criticism. Reporters report; they do not interpret. Of course no one can keep their beliefs from affecting what they see and say, but conscious spin is properly the preserve of the editorial page.

This ideal has eroded gradually throughout the whole internet era, and has been in rapid retreat for the past year. Commitment to objective observation is hard to maintain when you're observing others routinely trampling on truth.

[Pyperkub]

"The press shouldn't say the rulers are lying" ought to send a chill down the spine of every American regardless of political affiliation.

But here we are. This is how it is done.

How far is it from the press to the people?

[malchior]

Wolf did her usual comedy schtick -- bitchy women's locker room talk. If you don't like that act, don't book the talent.

Besides, every few years, the bar is raised on how to offend the White House Correspondents. Colbert in 2006, Seth Myers in 2011, Larry Wilmore in 2016, Hasan Minaj in 2017, and now Michelle Wolf.

I'm glad I clicked into this because I almost deposited this whole thing into the 4th Estate thread. This is the message that many comedians are saying. You don't like the truth - don't ask for a comedian. Especially one with a reputation for this type of material. You mean George Carlin was profane? Who would of known? Please. The "Press" is ridiculous at this point. Anything that challenges their intellectual superiority or shines a light on how truly awful they have been is not "acceptable". They are as elitist as the right claims them but mostly not in the way the right characterizes it.

[El Guapo]

"The press shouldn't say the rulers are lying" ought to send a chill down the spine of every American regardless of political affiliation.

But here we are. This is how it is done.

While it’s horrifying that we’re at the point where leaders are saying this out loud, it’s the fact that so many people are simply nodding along in agreement because “their team” would benefit that makes me pretty sure we’re headed for a really bad place as a country.

The thing is that there are a lot of mainstream journalists who essentially believe this - that they should basically just report each sides arguments, and not say whether one side / politician is lying, because that makes them partisan / nonobjective. It's something that Trump skillfully exploited during the campaign.

Historically journalists are taught to be conduits for accurate information without bias, comment, or criticism. Reporters report; they do not interpret. Of course no one can keep their beliefs from affecting what they see and say, but conscious spin is properly the preserve of the editorial page.

This ideal has eroded gradually throughout the whole internet era, and has been in rapid retreat for the past year. Commitment to objective observation is hard to maintain when you're observing others routinely trampling on truth.

The problem is that commitment to objective journalism requires calling a lie a lie when that is clearly the objective truth. I do get that doing so is a bit of a slippery slope, since evaluating whether something is a lie, or whether a politician is not arguing in good faith, inevitably requires at least some amount of subjective judgment that can be disputed - like, there's just overwhelming evidence, when you look at everything that Paul Ryan is done, that he cares about low taxes for the rich and low social safety net spending but cares essentially not at all about the deficit. But he says he cares about the deficit all the time. So a journalist to some degree has to decide between just reporting what both sides said (which is easy and maintains a clean veneer of objectivity), or reporting what both sides said and caveating that with indications that the public figure at issue is full of shit (which is often more accurate / truer, but necessarily involves wading to some degree into subjectivity and partisan arguments).

This bind is what Trump and the conservative movement more generally have exploited for awhile now to push agendas that are clearly unpopular while coating them with a veneer of appealing sounding bullshit.

[GreenGoo]

Listened to a conservative politician talk about his outrage at the press dinner while pretending he didn't understand what Drumpf meant when he mocked the handicapped reporter.

It was gross.

[Smoove_B]

Last week the President commented how the Paralympic games were "tough to watch" but Michelle Wolf's comparison of Sanders to a character in the Handmaid's Tale that is a mouthpiece for the horrific regime portrayed in the story is out of line? I don't even know what to make of this anymore.

[El Guapo]

Last week the President commented how the Paralympic games were "tough to watch" but Michelle Wolf's comparison of Sanders to a character in the Handmaid's Tale that is a mouthpiece for the horrific regime portrayed in the story is out of line? I don't even know what to make of this anymore.

Most of the flak has been about the joke about Sanders burning facts to make shadow eye (which I have now learned is a makeup style). That's obviously a joke about lying, but it's at least appearance related, so I guess that's something.

The Aunt Lydia thing I have seen a couple complaints about, but that's even more obviously political and not appearance related. Aunt Lydia isn't a young model or anything, but she's not obviously unattractive or anything, and the super obvious point is that it's about Sanders' participating in a super conservative regime that takes a religious bent and looks poorly on the rights of women. Real stretch to somehow make that joke about appearance.

[GreenGoo]

A lot of people pretending to be upset at the comedy act are intentionally substituting "fat" for "facts" in that "burning the facts" comment, which magically makes it weight related.

I gotta say, conservatives are amazing at pretending things.

[El Guapo]

A lot of people pretending to be upset at the comedy act are intentionally substituting "fat" for "facts" in that "burning the facts" comment, which magically makes it weight related.

I gotta say, conservatives are amazing at pretending things.

I could see hearing that at the moment, but she goes on to immediately joke about "maybe she's born with it, maybe it's lies. It's probably lies." Which makes the whole thing pretty clear. Like, I get maybe if you tweeted about it right at the moment, but that can't be sustained by thinking about it for more than 30 seconds.

[GreenGoo]

Doesn't matter. If it wasn't this one thing, it would be another made up thing.

Some conservatives are upset about the abortion joke, and I get that given their views, but it's not like dead baby jokes haven't been a thing for centuries, so...suck it up, I guess? Everyone got a piece, it's not like Wolfe didn't go after CNN, the media in general, and other non-conservative targets. Buncha snowflakes.

What gets me is that conservatives are crystal clear on how Wolfe intended to insult and offend them, but when asked about their feelings on a zillion Drumpf offenses, everybody is like "I'm not sure that's what he meant" and "he meant this, not what his words meant" etc etc.

It's all political and none of it is honest. I don't even know or care what the Dems are up to, the Reps have decided to wage war on the truth, facts and honesty, and that makes them the enemy of not just democrats, but of America.

Of course that's my opinion, but at some point you've got to ask yourself just what are you willing to sacrifice to "win". And not even win anything worthwhile, just 4 years that won't even matter 10 years from the time you sold your soul for a few political points.

There are plenty of times that politicians have done this in the past, but most, if not all, were held accountable by their peers and the American public. Now it's open season to be a scumbag.

Enjoy.

[El Guapo]

Doesn't matter. If it wasn't this one thing, it would be another made up thing.

Some conservatives are upset about the abortion joke, and I get that given their views, but it's not like dead baby jokes haven't been a thing for centuries, so...suck it up, I guess? Everyone got a piece, it's not like Wolfe didn't go after CNN, the media in general, and other non-conservative targets. Buncha snowflakes.

What gets me is that conservatives are crystal clear on how Wolfe intended to insult and offend them, but when asked about their feelings on a zillion Drumpf offenses, everybody is like "I'm not sure that's what he meant" and "he meant this, not what his words meant" etc etc.

It's all political and none of it is honest. I don't even know or care what the Dems are up to, the Reps have decided to wage war on the truth, facts and honesty, and that makes them the enemy of not just democrats, but of America.

Of course that's my opinion, but at some point you've got to ask yourself just what are you willing to sacrifice to "win". And not even win anything worthwhile, just 4 years that won't even matter 10 years from the time you sold your soul for a few political points.

There are plenty of times that politicians have done this in the past, but most, if not all, were held accountable by their peers and the American public. Now it's open season to be a scumbag.

Enjoy.

I get that. I just don't get how people like Maggie Haberman let themselves get sucked along and be accomplices to this sort of nonsense. It wouldn't be much more than noise if mainstream journalists didn't buy into it.

[GreenGoo]

Absolutely. And instead of providing meaningful counter points, this conservative dude (the guy who tweeted he was leaving in outrage!) just pointed at how right he was because *even* the mainstream media agreed with him (despite hearing how the mainstream media is fake news for last 1.5 years).

Maybe Wolfe offended by blaming the mainstream media for electing Drumpf so they decided to dogpile on her?

The whole thing is ridiculous.

[El Guapo]

Absolutely. And instead of providing meaningful counter points, this conservative dude (the guy who tweeted he was leaving in outrage!) just pointed at how right he was because *even* the mainstream media agreed with him (despite hearing how the mainstream media is fake news for last 1.5 years).

Maybe Wolfe offended by blaming the mainstream media for electing Drumpf so they decided to dogpile on her?

The whole thing is ridiculous.

I think her attacks on the media may well have colored their responses to the whole 'controversy'. The degree to which the media profited from and enabled Trump has to be something of an uncomfortable truth for mainstream journalists. Also I imagine that women journalists have all received a million attacks on and comments about their looks, and so may be more sensitive to that sort of thing.

But yeah, the whole thing is ridiculous. And of course Trump's insane speech the same night has been dwarfed by this 'controversy'.

[Moliere]

I like that one of her jabs is about places like CNN not being about news. Almost every show on every news network is about entertainment, not delivering news. Seriously, why do they all insist on having panels of guests interrupt each other in order to deliver their 30 second sound bite?

[Defiant]

At a rally to end divisive politics in D.C., speaker calls lawmaker a ‘fake Jew’

[pr0ner]

At a rally to end divisive politics in D.C., speaker calls lawmaker a ‘fake Jew’

All this stuff surrounding Trayon White and the Jewish stuff is mind boggling, even for the usual shitshow that is DC city politics.

[El Guapo]

I like that one of her jabs is about places like CNN not being about news. Almost every show on every news network is about entertainment, not delivering news. Seriously, why do they all insist on having panels of guests interrupt each other in order to deliver their 30 second sound bite?

Because panels of analysts is a cheap way for them to make content. Way cheaper and easier than investigative reporting, for example (though they do that also, of course, it's just hard to fill 24 hours with that).

[malchior]

I get that. I just don't get how people like Maggie Haberman let themselves get sucked along and be accomplices to this sort of nonsense. It wouldn't be much more than noise if mainstream journalists didn't buy into it.

Haberman is the elitist of the elites. I respect her writing sometimes and other times I can't help but feel she is pandering for access. This feels like one of those moments to me. It is her usual MO.

Edit: Fixed can't