This is why non-howler monkey conservatives get frustrated with the media

[TitanTiger 20,472]

New York Times headlines

 

 

 

Bitch about Fox News and their sycophantic Trump coverage (sans Shepard Smith, perhaps the last bastion of integrity left there), but this s*** is what created an opening for a Fox News in the first place.

[AUDub 11,147]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

New York Times headlines

 

 

Bitch about Fox News and their sycophantic Trump coverage (sans Shepard Smith, perhaps the last bastion of integrity left there), but this s*** is what created an opening for a Fox News in the first place. 

For what it's worth, I agree on your overall point, but I think you chose a poor example.

I actually think it's fair. The Senate has taken a particularly keen interest in his opinion on presidential powers and subpoenas, given his past writing on the subject, and because there's a very good change Kavanaugh's vote will weigh heavily on those topics in the future, what with 45 being an unindicted co-conspirator.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

For what it's worth, I agree on your overall point, but I think you chose a poor example.

I actually think it's fair. The Senate has taken a particularly keen interest in his opinion on presidential powers and subpoenas, given his past writing on the subject, and because there's a very good change Kavanaugh's vote will weigh heavily on those topics in the future, what with 45 being an unindicted co-conspirator.

I don't think the headline is fair.  Regardless of what interest level the Senate has this time around, he's not "ducking" responses anymore than any other recent SCOTUS nominee.

[AUDub 11,147]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't think the headline is fair.  Regardless of what interest level the Senate has this time around, he's not "ducking" responses anymore than any other recent SCOTUS nominee. 

He is ducking responses. His writing on this stuff is on paper.

Take, for instance, Kamala Harris grilling him about Kasowitz the other day. While it's not the spectacular own many in the media portrayed it as, it was pretty funny that he acted completely nonplussed and unfamiliar with the firm, when it turns out he had a "close friendship" (his words) with an attorney there.

On the abortion stuff, the media is just being plain silly.

[AUDub 11,147]

And another thing, you would expect "I am opposed to presidents attacking judges because of their ethnicity" to be a gimme. 

[Zeek 16,649]

Personally, “No-Fly Zone for Hypothetical Questions” would be my title. If you’re not getting the answers you want then maybe, just maybe, you’re not asking the right questions.

His appointment is bigger than whether or not one specific situation with Trump occurs. This man will be on that court for much longer than Trump’s time in the White House.

I need to focus more on his writings and what he said then hypotheticals that may or may not happen. I’ll go out on a lamb and say that he will most definitely be nominated despite all this posturing all Republicans will likely vote yes and all Democrats will likely vote no. I’ll also wager Trump won’t ever be impeached.

[AUDub 11,147]

1 minute ago, Zeek said:

Personally, “No-Fly Zone for Hypothetical Questions” would be my title. If you’re not getting the answers you want then maybe, just maybe, you’re not asking the right questions.

His appointment is bigger than whether or not one specific situation with Trump occurs. This man will be on that court for much longer than Trump’s time in the White House.

I need to focus more on his writings and what he said then hypotheticals that may or may not happen. I’ll go out on a lamb and say that he will most definitely be nominated despite all this posturing all Republicans will likely vote yes and all Democrats will likely vote no. I’ll also wager Trump won’t ever be impeached.

I expect him to get the nod with 55ish votes. Dems that are vulnerable in the midterms will join the Rs unless Collins and Murkowski oppose and the Rs don't have the votes.

Here's how I think he'll do, based in analyses I've read:

He'll be OK on the 1A, awful on net neutrality, awful on the 4A, strongly anti-abortion, strongly anti-things like gay and trans rights. 

[Zeek 16,649]

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I expect him to get the nod with 55ish votes. Dems that are vulnerable in the midterms will join the Rs unless Collins and Murkowski oppose and the Rs don't have the votes.

Here's how I think he'll do, based in analyses I've read:

He'll be OK on the 1A, awful on net neutrality, awful on the 4A, strongly anti-abortion, strongly anti-things like gay and trans rights. 

The net neutrality argument is baffling. None of the "people" of America support the crap show that Ajit Pai created. It's simply money changing hands and politicians acting like they're oblivious to what people actually want. 

[AUDub 11,147]

8 minutes ago, Zeek said:

The net neutrality argument is baffling. None of the "people" of America support the crap show that Ajit Pai created. It's simply money changing hands and politicians acting like they're oblivious to what people actually want. 

There is a lot of ignorance out there regarding net neutrality. 

 

[homersapien 11,367]

I don't think the headlines are necessarily unfair. 

Was Kagan asked anything for which she had a documented history but still refused to respond? 

[homersapien 11,367]

Here's a piece that directly compares Kagan's and Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/senate-kavanaugh/569596/

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't think the headlines are necessarily unfair. 

Was Kagan asked anything for which she had a history but still refused to respond? 

From the NY Times story:

Quote

WASHINGTON — Elena Kagan deflected questions about her own views on gun rights and abortion during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Tuesday, instead describing Supreme Court precedents. She declined to say whether terrorism suspects must be warned of the right to remain silent, saying the issue was “quite likely to get to the courts.”

And Ms. Kagan, the solicitor general and former dean of Harvard Law School, refused to say whether the Supreme Court was correct to take on the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, telling senators that the issue of when the court should intervene in disputed elections is “an important and difficult question” but one that could come before her should she be confirmed.

Ms. Kagan’s responses, during a long and sometimes tense day of parrying with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, were similar to those of Supreme Court nominees past. But unlike her predecessors, Ms. Kagan wrote a 1995 article calling for judicial nominees to be more forthcoming. On Tuesday, minutes into her testimony, she backpedaled, saying she now believed it would be inappropriate even to answer questions that might “provide some kind of hints” about her views on matters of legal controversy...

“I think that that was wrong,” she said. “I think that — in particular, that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to talk about what I think about past cases — you know, to grade cases — because those cases themselves might again come before the court.”

The remark set the stage for a day of hearings in which Ms. Kagan struck a delicate balancing act that proved frustrating to some senators even as the White House declared her “open and forthcoming.” Senator Arlen Specter, Democrat of Pennsylvania, repeatedly cut off Ms. Kagan, complaining at one point, “I don’t think I’m making too much progress.”

And Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, complained in an interview: “She’s doing exactly what she criticized other nominees for doing. She’s dancing.”...

Ms. Kagan was exceedingly careful on two of the most contentious issues in just about every Supreme Court nomination hearing: abortion and gun rights. When Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, demanded to know why Ms. Kagan had described two recent Supreme Court 5-to-4 rulings in favor of gun rights as “settled law,” Ms. Kagan kept her answer simple.

“Because the court decided them as they did,” she said. “And once the court has decided a case, it is binding precedent.”

She later described the rulings as “settled law, entitled to all the weight precedent usually gets.”

Similarly, in response to a question about abortion rights, Ms. Kagan replied that “the continuing holding” of the court on matters of abortion — except for a case involving a procedure critics call partial-birth abortion — is that “the woman’s life and the woman’s health must be protected in any abortion regulation.”

When asked about the scope of presidential power — in matters like detention without trial — Ms. Kagan cautioned that such cases could come before the court and described a legal framework for analyzing such disputes without saying what answer that analysis would generate...

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/us/30kagan.html

 

[AU64 10,122]

 

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

On Tuesday, minutes into her testimony, she backpedaled, saying she now believed it would be inappropriate even to answer questions that might “provide some kind of hints” about her views on matters of legal controversy...

Looks like Ms Kagan dodged/ducked a lot of direct questions for what were apparently deemed as acceptable reasons back then …..but now those reasons seem not to satisfy dems.   

[homersapien 11,367]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

From the NY Times story:

 

I was referring to specifics.  For example, did Kagan have a written record expressing her philosophies on a specific issue, such as gun control?

I think the Kavanaugh headline is referring more to positions on such specifics which have been kept from Democrats by McConnell circumventing Senate practices.

[homersapien 11,367]

Just now, AU64 said:

 

Looks like Ms Kagan dodged/ducked a lot of direct questions for what were apparently deemed as acceptable reasons back then …..but now those reasons seem not to satisfy dems.   

Again, that's not necessarily so.  Republicans had a lot more relevant documents for her hearing.  They could have always referenced one of those documents if they were dissatisfied with he perceived "evasion".

[TitanTiger 20,472]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I was referring to specifics.  For example, did Kagan have a written record expressing her philosophies on a specific issue, such as gun control?

I think the Kavanaugh headline is referring more to positions on such specifics which have been kept from Democrats by McConnell circumventing Senate practices.

That doesn't appears to be the case:

Quote

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, on Wednesday dodged direct questions about whether the Constitution would allow Mr. Trump to use the powers of the presidency to thwart the Russia collusion and obstruction investigations that are swirling around his administration.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on a grueling second day of hearings, Judge Kavanaugh refused to say whether he believes Mr. Trump, as a sitting president, could be subpoenaed by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, to testify in the sprawling inquiry. Answering questions in public for the first time since his nomination, the judge also declined to say whether Mr. Trump could escape legal jeopardy by pardoning himself or his associates.

“I’m not going to answer hypothetical questions of that sort,” Judge Kavanaugh said, insisting that it would be inappropriate for a Supreme Court nominee to publicly offer views on issues that might come before the court once he is a justice.  

...At the same time, he did not retreat from views offered in law review articles that revealed a robust conception of presidential power, views he said had been forged in large part by five years of service in the White House under President George W. Bush...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-hearing.html

There is no position he's taken on the issue of subpoenas before and he didn't retreat from his on the record views of presidential power.  

[AUDub 11,147]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

That doesn't appears to be the case:

There is no position he's taken on the issue of subpoenas before and he didn't retreat from his on the record views of presidential power.  

Thing is, it’s a good bet the idea that he would shield 45 is part of why he was chosen. I think it’s fair game. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/5/17822784/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-hearing-executive-power

Quote

“I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” Kavanaugh wrote in his 2009 piece. “We should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.” Kavanaugh also noted that the “indictment and trial of a sitting President” would “cripple the federal government.”

According to CNN’s Jim Acosta, the Trump administration reviewed these comments while they were weighing Kavanaugh’s nomination.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

That doesn't appears to be the case:

There is no position he's taken on the issue of subpoenas before and he didn't retreat from his on the record views of presidential power.  

I didn't mention subpoenas for the POTUS.

But all I am saying is that the headlines aren't necessarily misleading. 

We may or may not find out that Kavanaugh has taken actual positions in the past on sensitive issues which he now claims he cannot address on the basis of their being totally hypothetical.

My greater point is that McConnell is trying to railroad his confirmation and ignoring precedent in doing so:

"In the Kavanaugh case, the National Archives notified the Senate that it would not be able to complete its review of his documents until the beginning of October. The Senate Republicans ignored that message and scheduled the confirmation hearing for the first week in September. The documents were not vetted by the National Archives with participation by a presidential representative, but just by President Bush’s representative, Bill Burck. And President Trump, already being sued for repeated failures to abide by the Presidential Records Act, unilaterally declared 102,000 pages off limits."

 

But never fear, you'll probably get your repeal of Roe v. Wade. 

https://fivethirhttps://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-brett-kavanaugh-would-change-the-supreme-court/

You might even get more state restrictions on gay people, more aggressive voter restrictions, even fewer restrictions on campaign spending, more gerrymandering, weaker worker protections, less environmental protections and expansion of executive immunity.

But all that was "baked in" with Trump's election - as Trumpers readily admit.

I'll just pin my hopes on the popular political backlash, even if it takes years.  Garland - whom many republicans praised - would have been far better for the country.

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I didn't mention subpoenas for the POTUS.

But all I am saying is that the headlines aren't necessarily misleading. 

But that's what the headline says.  That's why I referenced it.

 

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

We may or may not find out that Kavanaugh has taken actual positions in the past on sensitive issues which he now claims he cannot address on the basis of their being totally hypothetical.

My greater point is that McConnell is trying to railroad his confirmation and ignoring precedent in doing so:

"In the Kavanaugh case, the National Archives notified the Senate that it would not be able to complete its review of his documents until the beginning of October. The Senate Republicans ignored that message and scheduled the confirmation hearing for the first week in September. The documents were not vetted by the National Archives with participation by a presidential representative, but just by President Bush’s representative, Bill Burck. And President Trump, already being sued for repeated failures to abide by the Presidential Records Act, unilaterally declared 102,000 pages off limits."

 

But never fear, you'll probably get your repeal of Roe v. Wade. 

https://fivethirhttps://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-brett-kavanaugh-would-change-the-supreme-court/

 

You might even get more state restrictions on gay people, more aggressive voter restrictions, even fewer restrictions on campaign spending, more gerrymandering, weaker worker protections, less environmental protections and expansion of executive immunity.

But all that was "baked in" with Trump's election - as Trumpers readily admit.

I'll just pin my hopes on the popular political backlash, even if it takes years.  Garland - whom many republicans praised - would have been far better for the country.

I don't agree with McConnell's handling of pretty much anything.  And Kavanaugh was probably my least favorite of the potential nominees believed to be among the finalists.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

12 hours ago, AUDub said:

For what it's worth, I agree on your overall point, but I think you chose a poor example.

I actually think it's fair. The Senate has taken a particularly keen interest in his opinion on presidential powers and subpoenas, given his past writing on the subject, and because there's a very good change Kavanaugh's vote will weigh heavily on those topics in the future, what with 45 being an unindicted co-conspirator.

Un-indicted co-conspirator means that Mueller is investigating Russian meddling in the election.  He has not brought any charges against Trump he also hasn't said one way or the other whether there is any evidence that Trump is involved.  At this point in time it is a way to smear Trump with no proof of what is being investigated.  If Mueller charges him with any that changes things till then it is just a code word with no meaning. 

I will concede Kavanauh will make the Supreme Court more conservative which is Trumps intent just as Obama selecting Kagan wanted a liberal on the court. When Ginsberg was selected a dyed in the wool liberal was picked and she is the one who set the precedent of not answering hypothetical questions it is often referred to as the Ginsberg Rule.

What Titan is showing is that the NY Times by the totally different headlines for the same behavior is biased.  Because you can pull up the two articles it makes it obvious of their bias and actually helps Trump when he says fake news.  They should have stuck to Editorial page and make their arguments on what they don't like about getting another conservative on the bench instead of giving Trump ammunition to use.

[DKW 86 7,419]

 

Quote

 

and then this: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/its-time-for-the-press-to-stop-complainingand-to-start-fighting-back/569224/

It’s Time for the Press to Stop Complaining—And to Start Fighting Back

It’s Time for the Press to Stop Complaining—And to Start Fighting Back

A nearly 50-year campaign of vilification, inspired by Fox News's Roger Ailes, has left many Americans distrustful of media outlets. Now, journalists need to speak up for their work.

Instead of attacking rivals, or assailing critics—going negative,in the parlance of political campaigns—reporters need to showcase and defend our reporting. Every day, we need to do our job, check our facts, strive to be transparent, and say what we’re seeing. That’s what I’ve tried to do here. I’ve seen a nearly 50-year campaign to delegitimize the press, and I’m saying so. For years, I didn’t say a word about this publicly, and at times I even caught myself drawing false equivalencies because I was afraid of being labeled as biased. I know that stating the obvious will draw attacks, but I’ve also learned that the louder critics bark, the more they care about what’s being reported.

 

I’m not advocating for a more activist press in the political sense, but for a more aggressive one. That means having a lower tolerance for talking points, and a greater willingness to speak plain truths. It means not allowing ourselves to be spun, and not giving guests or sources a platform to spin our readers and viewers, even if that angers them. Access isn’t journalism’s holy grail—facts are.  

The truth is that most journalists, in newsrooms large and small across the country, are doing their best each day to be fair, honest, and direct. These values are what Americans demand of one another, and it should be what they demand of their media. The challenge for viewers and readers is this: Ask yourself why someone is so determined to convince you not to believe your lying eyes.  

 

2

Everyone remember that Chuck Todd actually just wrote an essay saying that there is no credible case for Media Bias. <eyeroll> We live in an era where bias in media is just a plain given, going both ways.  

Hey Chuck, fact checks? Really? Who does fact checks these days?

Want to get your blood going? Go ahead and read the article going back for 5 years. It makes you wonder if ANY news organization ever checks any facts.

https://www.poynter.org/news/not-fake-news-just-plain-wrong-top-media-corrections-2017

Media Screwups of 2013

Media Screwups of 2014

Media Screwups of 2015

Media Screwups of 2016

[AUDub 11,147]

12 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Un-indicted co-conspirator means that Mueller is investigating Russian meddling in the election.  He has not brought any charges against Trump he also hasn't said one way or the other whether there is any evidence that Trump is involved.  At this point in time it is a way to smear Trump with no proof of what is being investigated.  If Mueller charges him with any that changes things till then it is just a code word with no meaning. 

Go read Cohen's plea. I'm referring to the alleged campaign finance violations found therein. Trump was implicated as "Individual-1."

Quote

I will concede Kavanauh will make the Supreme Court more conservative which is Trumps intent just as Obama selecting Kagan wanted a liberal on the court. When Ginsberg was selected a dyed in the wool liberal was picked and she is the one who set the precedent of not answering hypothetical questions it is often referred to as the Ginsberg Rule.

We're in the realm of possibility here. Individual-1 indeed committed a crime, if Cohen's plea deal is true. 

They're fair questions to ask, given that Kavanaugh has suggested, on paper, the president should not be called to testify or answer for his crimes while in office. There are major implications on the separation and balance of powers here, and we should expect answers. 

IMO, the perjury stuff is stupid, the abortion stuff is stupid, but the questions on the scope of executive power are something he should address, given Trump's behavior while in office, his view that the DOJ is his to do as he will and the like, and Kavanaugh's own words. 

Quote

What Titan is showing is that the NY Times by the totally different headlines for the same behavior is biased.  Because you can pull up the two articles it makes it obvious of their bias and actually helps Trump when he says fake news.  They should have stuck to Editorial page and make their arguments on what they don't like about getting another conservative on the bench instead of giving Trump ammunition to use.

Given the climate we're in now and the way the game has changed, I thinks it's fair to not only ask these questions, but expect answers. 

[autigeremt 6,601]

The “Press” has as much to do with division in this nation as anything with their slanted “news” and their outright fabrications with backpage corrections.  The institution of a free and unbiased press is in real jeapordy. 

[homersapien 11,367]

On 9/7/2018 at 12:35 PM, Zeek said:

The net neutrality argument is baffling. None of the "people" of America support the crap show that Ajit Pai created. It's simply money changing hands and politicians acting like they're oblivious to what people actually want. 

Yet, we've got a handful of people on this forum who oppose it - ironically on the basis of opposing regulations in general. 

 

[homersapien 11,367]

11 hours ago, autigeremt said:

The “Press” has as much to do with division in this nation as anything with their slanted “news” and their outright fabrications with backpage corrections.  The institution of a free and unbiased press is in real jeapordy.