As he moved on and started handing out bags of Hershey's kisses, he commented to one child, "Well you have no weight problems – that's the good news, right? So you take out whatever you need. If you want some for your friends, take it. We have plenty."
Not sure what this big rant is driving at exactly. Are you trying to draw equivalency between the Steel dossier and Trump Jr.'s meeting with Russians to get dirt on Hillary? "Revelations about Clinton" and "foreign interference in elections" is a pretty broad category with many potential things included. Can you be more specific?
Seems to me the press is doing it's job like it's supposed to; spewing ink over both of these issues (revelations of how politically embarrassing reports came to light) when they learned about them. The fact that the DNC first paid the money that generated the Steele dossier (rather than Republican opponents of Trump being the first to show interest/hire Oppo research which engaged Steele, as had been reported previously) is all over the news, just like Trump Jr's. meeting (and his lies about it) was over the summer. So how does this prove that reporters are being "sympathetic" to one side or the other? You seem to be conflating the selections made by comedy writers with reporters trying to do hard journalism. I guess you can be angry that late night shows decided that Trump was a more attractive target of satire than, say Hillary, but do you think it's really appropriate to hold them to the same standard as actual reporters?
While I enjoy listening to Jon Stewart any time, I'm not seeing whatever point you were trying to make here.
And yes, you're missing mine as well. It isn't strictly speaking about the press, tho that's part of it; I'm trying to make a point about political tribalism and how it is blinding the public to real issues by keeping our attention focused on phony or over-hyped scandals.
That tribalism extends to the press. Is Fox News going to have a nightly segment on the deaths of 4 soldiers in Niger for the remainder of the Trump administration? Pretty doubtful. Would Rachel Maddow gleefully read Trump's tax returns on the air line by line if they arrived in an envelope with Russian postage hand-carried by Hillary Clinton? Very likely, and she would have done it during the election too.
But it's not limited to the press. Remember how the antiwar movement dissolved when GW Bush left office? The wars didn't end, just the protests over them. Black men kneeling during the national anthem is an insult to our troops and national identity that must be dealt with harshly, but celebrating a failed rebellion against that flag and country is a sacred part of our cultural heritage.
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.
I'm posting this mostly for the die-hard Clinton fans in the audience.
The Trump Dossier has been trotted around as an indictment of Trump, and its more-salacious aspects have gotten endless play. Turns out it was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. What does that tell us?
Well...not very much. The contents of the dossier are true (or not) regardless of who paid for them. You can see that, right?
Right?
Now think about the fog of ink you and the press have been spewing over how the revelations about Clinton, her campaign, and the DNC came to light. Foreign interference in our elections! Pay no attention to the content of the revelations, it's all about how we found out!
Do you see the symmetry of the situation here? Are you outraged for poor Donald Trump because the most-embarrassing accusations* about him came from a partisan source, swallowed whole by a sympathetic news media?
No?
I'll just leave that there then.
*"Most-embarrassing accusation" is, of course, a subjective thing—and Donald Trump has an endless stream of them to choose from. I'm just going with the one that made the most news, and by "news" I mean the late-night TV comics' shows—the most-reliable political reporting we have.
Not sure what this big rant is driving at exactly. Are you trying to draw equivalency between the Steel dossier and Trump Jr.'s meeting with Russians to get dirt on Hillary? "Revelations about Clinton" and "foreign interference in elections" is a pretty broad category with many potential things included. Can you be more specific?
Seems to me the press is doing it's job like it's supposed to; spewing ink over both of these issues (revelations of how politically embarrassing reports came to light) when they learned about them. The fact that the DNC first paid the money that generated the Steele dossier (rather than Republican opponents of Trump being the first to show interest/hire Oppo research which engaged Steele, as had been reported previously) is all over the news, just like Trump Jr's. meeting (and his lies about it) was over the summer. So how does this prove that reporters are being "sympathetic" to one side or the other? You seem to be conflating the selections made by comedy writers with reporters trying to do hard journalism. I guess you can be angry that late night shows decided that Trump was a more attractive target of satire than, say Hillary, but do you think it's really appropriate to hold them to the same standard as actual reporters?
I was outraged when Bernie's campaign and hard work was sabotaged. Especially when the media was telling CA to stay home because Clinton already won the primary.
Yup. The Democratic Party shot themselves in the foot.
outraged? disappointed for the broken political system? yes.
I was outraged when Bernie's campaign and hard work was sabotaged. Especially when the media was telling CA to stay home because Clinton already won the primary.
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.
I'm posting this mostly for the die-hard Clinton fans in the audience.
The Trump Dossier has been trotted around as an indictment of Trump, and its more-salacious aspects have gotten endless play. Turns out it was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. What does that tell us?
Well...not very much. The contents of the dossier are true (or not) regardless of who paid for them. You can see that, right?
Right?
Now think about the fog of ink you and the press have been spewing over how the revelations about Clinton, her campaign, and the DNC came to light. Foreign interference in our elections! Pay no attention to the content of the revelations, it's all about how we found out!
Do you see the symmetry of the situation here? Are you outraged for poor Donald Trump because the most-embarrassing accusations* about him came from a partisan source, swallowed whole by a sympathetic news media?
No?
I'll just leave that there then.
*"Most-embarrassing accusation" is, of course, a subjective thing—and Donald Trump has an endless stream of them to choose from. I'm just going with the one that made the most news, and by "news" I mean the late-night TV comics' shows—the most-reliable political reporting we have.
not outraged FOR DT.
outraged? disappointed for the broken political system? yes.
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.
I'm posting this mostly for the die-hard Clinton fans in the audience.
The Trump Dossier has been trotted around as an indictment of Trump, and its more-salacious aspects have gotten endless play. Turns out it was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. What does that tell us?
Well...not very much. The contents of the dossier are true (or not) regardless of who paid for them. You can see that, right?
Right?
Now think about the fog of ink you and the press have been spewing over how the revelations about Clinton, her campaign, and the DNC came to light. Foreign interference in our elections! Pay no attention to the content of the revelations, it's all about how we found out!
Do you see the symmetry of the situation here? Are you outraged for poor Donald Trump because the most-embarrassing accusations* about him came from a partisan source, swallowed whole by a sympathetic news media?
No?
I'll just leave that there then.
*"Most-embarrassing accusation" is, of course, a subjective thing—and Donald Trump has an endless stream of them to choose from. I'm just going with the one that made the most news, and by "news" I mean the late-night TV comics' shows—the most-reliable political reporting we have.
Ed is ginandtacos. He wrote this about himself in the third person – like Bob Dole, except he used both hands.
Too soon?
Ed is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Midwestern Liberal Arts University after receiving his Ph.D. in political science from Giant Midwestern Public University and teaching for three years at Giant Southern Public University. He teaches Intro to American Government, Public Opinion, Elections, and The Presidency to a select group of very lucky boys and girls each semester. His academic research studies the spatial and geographic context of political behavior – partisanship, turnout, and public opinion. He also performs stand-up comedy on the regular and plays/played drums in a band called Tremendous Fucking. Like every band on the planet, they have a MySpace. It is highly recommended that you buy their latest album off of iTunes in order to get into heaven. Sometimes he stands on a stage and tells jokes as well, inasmuch as scathing social criticism can be described as a joke.
