President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[creekster]

Everyone is biased. E v e r y o n e. It's more important that they try to be intellectually honest, which helps avoid undue bias in news reporting, and that the viewr/reader/listener be able to think critically.

[frank ryan]

Here is a detailed description of a current example of WaPo NOT accurately reporting what happened and injecting slant into a news article:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...n-portland.php

I'm underwhelmed by that blog entry. Did you ever check out that timeline?

[BlueK]

Everyone is biased. E v e r y o n e. It's more important that they try to be intellectually honest, which helps avoid undue bias in news reporting, and that the viewr/reader/listener be able to think critically.

What specifically was intellectually dishonest or incorrect about the events outlined in the Washington Post article?

[creekster]

What specifically was intellectually dishonest or incorrect about the events outlined in the Washington Post article?

I didn't say anything was. I am saying the focus on bias is not very useful. The focus should be on intellectual dishonesty or undue bias. That's all.

[Crockett]

I'm underwhelmed by that blog entry. Did you ever check out that timeline?

I actually did. One of the items did make me go hmmm, but most did not. However, when I go back it's behind the paywall again. Must've burned one of my monthly freebies on that article.

The only actual crimes out there that have any evidence at this point are the felony leaks of classified info. Let's let Mueller do a thorough investigation and let the facts at that point land where they may. In the meantime, the only people pushing an unsupported claim or narrative of "collusion" are dishonest hacks or dupes.

BTW, I'd also like to compare the WaPo timeline time to contact Hillary and her team have had with Russians over time. Probably a lot of similar contact, if not more. I would need to include the highly suspicious dealings of the Clinton Foundation that received lots of $$$ amid a Russian uranium deal, as reported in the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...pany.html?_r=0.

[Crockett]

Everyone is biased. E v e r y o n e. It's more important that they try to be intellectually honest, which helps avoid undue bias in news reporting, and that the viewr/reader/listener be able to think critically.

Agreed. However, Frank has been kinda snarky about the MSM and claims of bias, so I may point out some examples from time to time.

[frank ryan]

I actually did. One of the items did make me go hmmm, but most did not. However, when I go back it's behind the paywall again. Must've burned one of my monthly freebies on that article.

The only actual crimes out there that have any evidence at this point are the felony leaks of classified info. Let's let Mueller do a thorough investigation and let the facts at that point land where they may. In the meantime, the only people pushing an unsupported claim or narrative of "collusion" are dishonest hacks or dupes.

BTW, I'd also like to compare the WaPo timeline time to contact Hillary and her team have had with Russians over time. Probably a lot of similar contact, if not more. I would need to include the highly suspicious dealings of the Clinton Foundation that received lots of $$$ amid a Russian uranium deal, as reported in the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...pany.html?_r=0.

There's a lot of details that point to the possibility of "collusion." I agree, let Mueller investigate. Flynn's conduct seems potentially criminal.
WTF are you bringing up Hillary for? She's not POTUS. You're quite the Trump apologist.

[Topper]

There's a lot of details that point to the possibility of "collusion." I agree, let Mueller investigate. Flynn's conduct seems potentially criminal.
WTF are you bringing up Hillary for? She's not POTUS. You're quite the Trump apologist.

And you're a Dem demagogue.

[Moliere]

What specifically was intellectually dishonest or incorrect about the events outlined in the Washington Post article?

It's been a couple days since I read it but I remember there being a number of points that were simply conjecture or stretch conclusions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moliere]

There's a lot of details that point to the possibility of "collusion." I agree, let Mueller investigate. Flynn's conduct seems potentially criminal.
WTF are you bringing up Hillary for? She's not POTUS. You're quite the Trump apologist.

I think a comparison to a party in a similar position (Hillary) is a valid request. On the face it looks like a lot of contact with the Russians but how is the average citizen able to know what is a lot of contact and was is a normal amount of contact. A comparable alternative is always a good measuring stick when readers are not familiar with what is normal in a situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sleeping in EQ]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartanntp

[frank ryan]

I think a comparison to a party in a similar position (Hillary) is a valid request. On the face it looks like a lot of contact with the Russians but how is the average citizen able to know what is a lot of contact and was is a normal amount of contact. A comparable alternative is always a good measuring stick when readers are not familiar with what is normal in a situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's really not. There weren't allegations of secret meetings, where offers to lift sanctions happened. There weren't events that pointed to collusion. Additionally, Russia never lifted a finger to help Hillary, whereas with Trump they actively influenced our election to get him in power.

The whole uranium Clinton charge is also bogus. Clinton didn't have the power to say yes or no to the deal. It's right-wing conspiranoia. Here Snopes on that:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinto...m-russia-deal/

[creekster]

It's really not. There weren't allegations of secret meetings, where offers to lift sanctions happened. There weren't events that pointed to collusion. Additionally, Russia never lifted a finger to help Hillary, whereas with Trump they actively influenced our election to get him in power.

The whole uranium Clinton charge is also bogus. Clinton didn't have the power to say yes or no to the deal. It's right-wing conspiranoia. Here Snopes on that:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinto...m-russia-deal/

I think your response pretty much proves moliere's point. The comparison can be instructive.

As to snopes, I will rely on them for blue dress/white dress guidance but I am not sure they get the same respect in geopolitics.

[old_gregg]

I think your response pretty much proves moliere's point. The comparison can be instructive.

As to snopes, I will rely on them for blue dress/white dress guidance but I am not sure they get the same respect in geopolitics.

[Walter Sobchak]

Pursuing the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory has some benefits, but at what cost?

<https://newrepublic.com/article/1431...ump-opposition>

At the same time, by acquiescing to a center-left stratagem, the anti-establishment left forfeits its own ability to shape the public perception of the Resistance; and because the center-left is where the fixation on Russia originates, the most salient means of opposing Trump is viewed as taking him down on Russia-related grounds. Granted, there’s some logic to this strategy, as creating an aura of generalized scandal around Trump seems to have successfully hampered his ability to staff the federal government and pursue anything resembling a coherent governing agenda. Trump’s erratic behavior gives the Democratic base the impression, understandably, that there must be some underlying criminality at the heart of the Russia issue, or else Trump wouldn’t blow so much hot air about it. And while the collusion suspicion may never be confirmed, Trump’s response to the inquiry—specifically, his firing of FBI Director James Comey—has raised the legitimate question of whether he obstructed justice.

But deferring to liberal analysis on this subject also means that progressivism is increasingly associated in the public imagination with Russia histrionics rather than, say, a non-interventionist foreign policy or aversion to concentrated financial power. Cooked-up narratives about foreign infiltration are normally the province of the right, but the center-left has cooked up one of its own—or at least, overhyped what little remains known—for reasons of political opportunism. If the left wishes to be a check on power and create the conditions for long-term change, it’s imperative that it respond with careful, evidence-based inquiry, as there are growing segments of the populace with reasonable questions about what the hell happened. Democratic Party zealots can’t be the only ones offering answers.