AOC

[youthathletics]

I don't disagree MD.

My point in posting much of what I do from Social Media, is to bring some of you into the fray of what the majority of voters are seeing day in, and day out. As noted by most on here, you all dabble very little on social media, that same social media that the smart phone generation reads constantly is what gets planted in their minds. Their comprehension level is often 140 characters or less, now Twitter will allow up to 280...that may actually make it worse if the headlines are all they are reading.

Remember, in this era, the narrative sells, and gains traction only when trending via analytics on social media platforms and clicks on webpages. I am at the age of being stuck in the middle. I grew up on reading the remnants of my fathers Washington Post and Washington Star, then got wise to social media to monitor my kids and those I coached...I got sucked in. I consider myself a thinker, and struggle to believe anything I read in media, always thinking "what are they distracting me from", a natural inquisitiveness that honestly drives me nuts....and my family.

[ABV 8.3%]

Breaking: Chief of staff and communications director for Ocasio-Cortez abruptly resign.

Saikat Chakrabarti resigned as the chief of staff for Ocasio-Cortez after a series of controversies over his comments that led to a recriminations from the Democratic establishment and the progressive upstarts in the party.....

....In another misstep, Chakrabarti admitted in an interview that the Green New Deal was crafted in order to seize the economy, not to fix the climate.

Quite interesting.

On this, I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the things that Pelosi and AOC spoke about in their meeting recently. Doesn't The link say as much.
Chakrabarti had indeed been an inflammatory influence in the AOC office, impolitic. And Pelosi undoubtedly emphasized the need to build influence by making allies, not foes, within the Dem Party, and AOC listened and acted. Makes sense.

But the characterization in the very far right wing rag, the Blaze, as usual misstates reality. His tweet about the Green New Deal wasn't saying it had been "crafted to seize the economy, not to fix the climate". That's just how the far right wanted to play his meaning. He saw it as an effort to reshape the economy, not simply about climate, meaning away from incentivizing carbon and waste to one focused on valuing sustainable, ethical economic choices. Climate being just one piece of "Green".

Lots to argue about in all that, but the Blaze purposely misrepresents as part of their practice.

youth, I think the rags, left or right, that flagrantly promote conspiracy theories and don't practice basic journalistic ethics only degrade our understanding...they should be ignored or at least viewed with a very high degree of skepticism.

MDLAX, CHakrabarti is an arrogant fool. He called one of the few, if only, REAL native american/indian a "racist" because of a Congressional vote. The guy is a clown. Not to be respected as he respects no one.

This is the original source to the GND issue. the Washington POST So, you are 100% wrong on getting anything wrong. Can you save the planet AND employee people, make our environment a nicer place? Or course. Al Gore and Jim Hansen said as much. It's an old idea. A good idea, they just are selling it wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BURDqZVdKAc

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mag ... 433ee1e7ec

[runrussellrun]

The most comical take of this guy Chakrabarti in the reporting is this:

"After saving enough money to start his own company, after working for a Conn. hedge fund "........Saikat was 23 years old when he started his own company. Must have been a hell of a year Is this Ivy league grad from a wealthy family? Or, did he just sell drugs to his co-eds? Not the first time people have ammassed fortunes from "illegal" activities. Won't be the last either. Just asking how he got the money , at age 23, to start his own company.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The most comical take of this guy Chakrabarti in the reporting is this:

"After saving enough money to start his own company, after working for a Conn. hedge fund "........Saikat was 23 years old when he started his own company. Must have been a hell of a year Is this Ivy league grad from a wealthy family? Or, did he just sell drugs to his co-eds? Not the first time people have ammassed fortunes from "illegal" activities. Won't be the last either. Just asking how he got the money , at age 23, to start his own company.

Probably like those Wasserman Schultz brothers from Pakistan. Whatever happened to them?

[MDlaxfan76]

I don't disagree MD.

My point in posting much of what I do from Social Media, is to bring some of you into the fray of what the majority of voters are seeing day in, and day out. As noted by most on here, you all dabble very little on social media, that same social media that the smart phone generation reads constantly is what gets planted in their minds. Their comprehension level is often 140 characters or less, now Twitter will allow up to 280...that may actually make it worse if the headlines are all they are reading.

Remember, in this era, the narrative sells, and gains traction only when trending via analytics on social media platforms and clicks on webpages. I am at the age of being stuck in the middle. I grew up on reading the remnants of my fathers Washington Post and Washington Star, then got wise to social media to monitor my kids and those I coached...I got sucked in. I consider myself a thinker, and struggle to believe anything I read in media, always thinking "what are they distracting me from", a natural inquisitiveness that honestly drives me nuts....and my family.

Great; it would be helpful, however, that if you post something linked to a source that's not credible that you make clear that your intent isn't agreement and that the source is not credible...but others could be misinformed by it...

We need an emoji!

Yes, the garbage that voters see and often believe is just that, garbage.
No journalistic ethics at all.

[MDlaxfan76]

Breaking: Chief of staff and communications director for Ocasio-Cortez abruptly resign.

Saikat Chakrabarti resigned as the chief of staff for Ocasio-Cortez after a series of controversies over his comments that led to a recriminations from the Democratic establishment and the progressive upstarts in the party.....

....In another misstep, Chakrabarti admitted in an interview that the Green New Deal was crafted in order to seize the economy, not to fix the climate.

Quite interesting.

On this, I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the things that Pelosi and AOC spoke about in their meeting recently. Doesn't The link say as much.
Chakrabarti had indeed been an inflammatory influence in the AOC office, impolitic. And Pelosi undoubtedly emphasized the need to build influence by making allies, not foes, within the Dem Party, and AOC listened and acted. Makes sense.

But the characterization in the very far right wing rag, the Blaze, as usual misstates reality. His tweet about the Green New Deal wasn't saying it had been "crafted to seize the economy, not to fix the climate". That's just how the far right wanted to play his meaning. He saw it as an effort to reshape the economy, not simply about climate, meaning away from incentivizing carbon and waste to one focused on valuing sustainable, ethical economic choices. Climate being just one piece of "Green".

Lots to argue about in all that, but the Blaze purposely misrepresents as part of their practice.

youth, I think the rags, left or right, that flagrantly promote conspiracy theories and don't practice basic journalistic ethics only degrade our understanding...they should be ignored or at least viewed with a very high degree of skepticism.

MDLAX, CHakrabarti is an arrogant fool. He called one of the few, if only, REAL native american/indian a "racist" because of a Congressional vote. The guy is a clown. Not to be respected as he respects no one.

This is the original source to the GND issue. the Washington POST So, you are 100% wrong on getting anything wrong. Can you save the planet AND employee people, make our environment a nicer place? Or course. Al Gore and Jim Hansen said as much. It's an old idea. A good idea, they just are selling it wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BURDqZVdKAc

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mag ... 433ee1e7ec

ABV, I'm not sweating your view of Chakrabarti. Made sense to me that Pelosi suggested to AOC that he was a problem and needed to go. I'm glad AOC agreed and got it done.

I'm saying that the Blaze used the word "admitted" and "seized"...and that's not at all what he'd said. I read the quote and only a hard right hack job would mis-read and misrepresent it that way. Of course the Green New Deal is about "changing" the whole economy, incentivizing all sorts of ethical choices beyond simply climate impact. They didn't call it the New Climate Deal.

Plenty to argue with the far left progressives and the GND without misrepresenting what they actually say and think.

The Blaze is part of the problem, not a credible source of information and rational analysis. Too much BS.

[runrussellrun]

The most comical take of this guy Chakrabarti in the reporting is this:

"After saving enough money to start his own company, after working for a Conn. hedge fund "........Saikat was 23 years old when he started his own company. Must have been a hell of a year Is this Ivy league grad from a wealthy family? Or, did he just sell drugs to his co-eds? Not the first time people have ammassed fortunes from "illegal" activities. Won't be the last either. Just asking how he got the money , at age 23, to start his own company.

Probably like those Wasserman Schultz brothers from Pakistan. Whatever happened to them?

You know exactly what happened to them.

[runrussellrun]

Conversation between the speaker of the house and AOC, after Nancy chewed Alex a new one.

PELOSI: " ......we can gerrymander your district to extinction, you do realize that ..."

AOC: "....hadn't really thought that far ahead ...."

PELOSI: ".... we have a VOTE coming up on funding our corporate welfare partners (1%) YOU, are gong to vote YES to approve it.."

AOC: " .......understood. You guarantee that my district is safe? "

PELOSI: "YES ! And I also promise I will increase your twitter followers "

AOC: "....oh, thank you, thank you. Wednesday, I am making glutton free penne pasta with chicken tarrigon, while talking about the Green New deal. You should watch the live stream. "

PELOSI: " Of course I will watch "

PELOSI: "ONe more item... you're also going to , Alex, may I call you Alex? You're gonna "resign" Chakarti, (Chief of ) , like yesterday "

AOC : ".....again, understood. He DID completely F'd up the GND rollout ......it is THE issue of importance "

[ABV 8.3%]

Breaking: Chief of staff and communications director for Ocasio-Cortez abruptly resign.

Saikat Chakrabarti resigned as the chief of staff for Ocasio-Cortez after a series of controversies over his comments that led to a recriminations from the Democratic establishment and the progressive upstarts in the party.....

....In another misstep, Chakrabarti admitted in an interview that the Green New Deal was crafted in order to seize the economy, not to fix the climate.

Quite interesting.

On this, I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the things that Pelosi and AOC spoke about in their meeting recently. Doesn't The link say as much.
Chakrabarti had indeed been an inflammatory influence in the AOC office, impolitic. And Pelosi undoubtedly emphasized the need to build influence by making allies, not foes, within the Dem Party, and AOC listened and acted. Makes sense.

But the characterization in the very far right wing rag, the Blaze, as usual misstates reality. His tweet about the Green New Deal wasn't saying it had been "crafted to seize the economy, not to fix the climate". That's just how the far right wanted to play his meaning. He saw it as an effort to reshape the economy, not simply about climate, meaning away from incentivizing carbon and waste to one focused on valuing sustainable, ethical economic choices. Climate being just one piece of "Green".

Lots to argue about in all that, but the Blaze purposely misrepresents as part of their practice.

youth, I think the rags, left or right, that flagrantly promote conspiracy theories and don't practice basic journalistic ethics only degrade our understanding...they should be ignored or at least viewed with a very high degree of skepticism.

MDLAX, CHakrabarti is an arrogant fool. He called one of the few, if only, REAL native american/indian a "racist" because of a Congressional vote. The guy is a clown. Not to be respected as he respects no one.

This is the original source to the GND issue. the Washington POST So, you are 100% wrong on getting anything wrong. Can you save the planet AND employee people, make our environment a nicer place? Or course. Al Gore and Jim Hansen said as much. It's an old idea. A good idea, they just are selling it wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BURDqZVdKAc

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mag ... 433ee1e7ec

ABV, I'm not sweating your view of Chakrabarti. Made sense to me that Pelosi suggested to AOC that he was a problem and needed to go. I'm glad AOC agreed and got it done.

I'm saying that the Blaze used the word "admitted" and "seized"...and that's not at all what he'd said. I read the quote and only a hard right hack job would mis-read and misrepresent it that way. Of course the Green New Deal is about "changing" the whole economy, incentivizing all sorts of ethical choices beyond simply climate impact. They didn't call it the New Climate Deal.

Plenty to argue with the far left progressives and the GND without misrepresenting what they actually say and think.

The Blaze is part of the problem, not a credible source of information and rational analysis. Too much BS.

From your comments, you didn't read the Washington Post article?

[MDlaxfan76]

Breaking: Chief of staff and communications director for Ocasio-Cortez abruptly resign.

Saikat Chakrabarti resigned as the chief of staff for Ocasio-Cortez after a series of controversies over his comments that led to a recriminations from the Democratic establishment and the progressive upstarts in the party.....

....In another misstep, Chakrabarti admitted in an interview that the Green New Deal was crafted in order to seize the economy, not to fix the climate.

Quite interesting.

On this, I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the things that Pelosi and AOC spoke about in their meeting recently. Doesn't The link say as much.
Chakrabarti had indeed been an inflammatory influence in the AOC office, impolitic. And Pelosi undoubtedly emphasized the need to build influence by making allies, not foes, within the Dem Party, and AOC listened and acted. Makes sense.

But the characterization in the very far right wing rag, the Blaze, as usual misstates reality. His tweet about the Green New Deal wasn't saying it had been "crafted to seize the economy, not to fix the climate". That's just how the far right wanted to play his meaning. He saw it as an effort to reshape the economy, not simply about climate, meaning away from incentivizing carbon and waste to one focused on valuing sustainable, ethical economic choices. Climate being just one piece of "Green".

Lots to argue about in all that, but the Blaze purposely misrepresents as part of their practice.

youth, I think the rags, left or right, that flagrantly promote conspiracy theories and don't practice basic journalistic ethics only degrade our understanding...they should be ignored or at least viewed with a very high degree of skepticism.

MDLAX, CHakrabarti is an arrogant fool. He called one of the few, if only, REAL native american/indian a "racist" because of a Congressional vote. The guy is a clown. Not to be respected as he respects no one.

This is the original source to the GND issue. the Washington POST So, you are 100% wrong on getting anything wrong. Can you save the planet AND employee people, make our environment a nicer place? Or course. Al Gore and Jim Hansen said as much. It's an old idea. A good idea, they just are selling it wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BURDqZVdKAc

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mag ... 433ee1e7ec

ABV, I'm not sweating your view of Chakrabarti. Made sense to me that Pelosi suggested to AOC that he was a problem and needed to go. I'm glad AOC agreed and got it done.

I'm saying that the Blaze used the word "admitted" and "seized"...and that's not at all what he'd said. I read the quote and only a hard right hack job would mis-read and misrepresent it that way. Of course the Green New Deal is about "changing" the whole economy, incentivizing all sorts of ethical choices beyond simply climate impact. They didn't call it the New Climate Deal.

Plenty to argue with the far left progressives and the GND without misrepresenting what they actually say and think.

The Blaze is part of the problem, not a credible source of information and rational analysis. Too much BS.

From your comments, you didn't read the Washington Post article?

No, I had not read the WAPO article; don't have access beyond the firewall. But I did read the available other reporting of what he'd said (and the quote from him) and made my own assessment based on his actual words. And based on my other reading on what the GND is all about, which is indeed more than just 'climate'.

My thought about Pelosi being the nudge for his departure was entirely my own speculation. I knew they'd met and that this guy was subsequently out, made sense to me that Pelosi would have given AOC that advice. Glad she took it.

The Blaze stuff intentionally slants the story in ways that give a false impression of what was 'admitted' and 'seized'. I reject their biased slant.

But have no issue with this guy getting the proverbial boot.
Sounds like he has some pretty low emotional IQ. Not ok in a Chief of Staff.

[ABV 8.3%]

mdlax, you commenting on an article you never read is priceless. Credibility pretty much shot.

[MDlaxfan76]

mdlax, you commenting on an article you never read is priceless. Credibility pretty much shot.

I commented on the article in the Blaze, not WAPO.

The Blaze is trash.

You quoted from the WAPO article and I responded to that quote too.

If you think there’s something I’m missing that the WAPO article articulated better than you can do, please excerpt it for us to understand what your point is.

Happy to respond if you do so.

[ABV 8.3%]

Something about cred.

[cradleandshoot]

Breaking: Chief of staff and communications director for Ocasio-Cortez abruptly resign.

Saikat Chakrabarti resigned as the chief of staff for Ocasio-Cortez after a series of controversies over his comments that led to a recriminations from the Democratic establishment and the progressive upstarts in the party.....

....In another misstep, Chakrabarti admitted in an interview that the Green New Deal was crafted in order to seize the economy, not to fix the climate.

Quite interesting.

On this, I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the things that Pelosi and AOC spoke about in their meeting recently. Doesn't The link say as much.
Chakrabarti had indeed been an inflammatory influence in the AOC office, impolitic. And Pelosi undoubtedly emphasized the need to build influence by making allies, not foes, within the Dem Party, and AOC listened and acted. Makes sense.

But the characterization in the very far right wing rag, the Blaze, as usual misstates reality. His tweet about the Green New Deal wasn't saying it had been "crafted to seize the economy, not to fix the climate". That's just how the far right wanted to play his meaning. He saw it as an effort to reshape the economy, not simply about climate, meaning away from incentivizing carbon and waste to one focused on valuing sustainable, ethical economic choices. Climate being just one piece of "Green".

Lots to argue about in all that, but the Blaze purposely misrepresents as part of their practice.

youth, I think the rags, left or right, that flagrantly promote conspiracy theories and don't practice basic journalistic ethics only degrade our understanding...they should be ignored or at least viewed with a very high degree of skepticism.

MDLAX, CHakrabarti is an arrogant fool. He called one of the few, if only, REAL native american/indian a "racist" because of a Congressional vote. The guy is a clown. Not to be respected as he respects no one.

This is the original source to the GND issue. the Washington POST So, you are 100% wrong on getting anything wrong. Can you save the planet AND employee people, make our environment a nicer place? Or course. Al Gore and Jim Hansen said as much. It's an old idea. A good idea, they just are selling it wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BURDqZVdKAc

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mag ... 433ee1e7ec

ABV, I'm not sweating your view of Chakrabarti. Made sense to me that Pelosi suggested to AOC that he was a problem and needed to go. I'm glad AOC agreed and got it done.

I'm saying that the Blaze used the word "admitted" and "seized"...and that's not at all what he'd said. I read the quote and only a hard right hack job would mis-read and misrepresent it that way. Of course the Green New Deal is about "changing" the whole economy, incentivizing all sorts of ethical choices beyond simply climate impact. They didn't call it the New Climate Deal.

Plenty to argue with the far left progressives and the GND without misrepresenting what they actually say and think.

The Blaze is part of the problem, not a credible source of information and rational analysis. Too much BS.

So who the hell granted you the power to determine what sources are credible and what sources are not? Do you understand what an arrogant jerk you sound like? It is your OPINION numbnuts…, good god you RINO's are even more stupid than the FLP folks. MD... you really are too full of yourself to take seriously anymore. Climb down off of your ivory tower and understand like all the rest of us here... your turd does also stink.

[MDlaxfan76]

Breaking: Chief of staff and communications director for Ocasio-Cortez abruptly resign.

Saikat Chakrabarti resigned as the chief of staff for Ocasio-Cortez after a series of controversies over his comments that led to a recriminations from the Democratic establishment and the progressive upstarts in the party.....

....In another misstep, Chakrabarti admitted in an interview that the Green New Deal was crafted in order to seize the economy, not to fix the climate.

Quite interesting.

On this, I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the things that Pelosi and AOC spoke about in their meeting recently. Doesn't The link say as much.
Chakrabarti had indeed been an inflammatory influence in the AOC office, impolitic. And Pelosi undoubtedly emphasized the need to build influence by making allies, not foes, within the Dem Party, and AOC listened and acted. Makes sense.

But the characterization in the very far right wing rag, the Blaze, as usual misstates reality. His tweet about the Green New Deal wasn't saying it had been "crafted to seize the economy, not to fix the climate". That's just how the far right wanted to play his meaning. He saw it as an effort to reshape the economy, not simply about climate, meaning away from incentivizing carbon and waste to one focused on valuing sustainable, ethical economic choices. Climate being just one piece of "Green".

Lots to argue about in all that, but the Blaze purposely misrepresents as part of their practice.

youth, I think the rags, left or right, that flagrantly promote conspiracy theories and don't practice basic journalistic ethics only degrade our understanding...they should be ignored or at least viewed with a very high degree of skepticism.

MDLAX, CHakrabarti is an arrogant fool. He called one of the few, if only, REAL native american/indian a "racist" because of a Congressional vote. The guy is a clown. Not to be respected as he respects no one.

This is the original source to the GND issue. the Washington POST So, you are 100% wrong on getting anything wrong. Can you save the planet AND employee people, make our environment a nicer place? Or course. Al Gore and Jim Hansen said as much. It's an old idea. A good idea, they just are selling it wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BURDqZVdKAc

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mag ... 433ee1e7ec

ABV, I'm not sweating your view of Chakrabarti. Made sense to me that Pelosi suggested to AOC that he was a problem and needed to go. I'm glad AOC agreed and got it done.

I'm saying that the Blaze used the word "admitted" and "seized"...and that's not at all what he'd said. I read the quote and only a hard right hack job would mis-read and misrepresent it that way. Of course the Green New Deal is about "changing" the whole economy, incentivizing all sorts of ethical choices beyond simply climate impact. They didn't call it the New Climate Deal.

Plenty to argue with the far left progressives and the GND without misrepresenting what they actually say and think.

The Blaze is part of the problem, not a credible source of information and rational analysis. Too much BS.

So who the hell granted you the power to determine what sources are credible and what sources are not? Do you understand what an arrogant jerk you sound like? It is your OPINION numbnuts…, good god you RINO's are even more stupid than the FLP folks. MD... you really are too full of yourself to take seriously anymore. Climb down off of your ivory tower and understand like all the rest of us here... your turd does also stink.

Always good to have a reminder of the latter point, cradle.
Yes, mine stinks like anyone else.

However, on what's credible and what's not, perhaps you missed the earlier discussion in which I provided some third party citations from orgs that examine such questions of degree of bias and the degree to which a publication traffics in misstating, misrepresenting facts for political purpose.

The consensus of those orgs is that Blaze if far right biased and not a credible source. These orgs similarly rate left wing rags, just biased hard left.

This specific discussion I was having with ABV involved how the Blaze article had misrepresented what AOC's former COS had said on a very specific matter. It exaggerated for effect, twisting the truth.

However, I agreed that the guy should have been moved out of the COS role, as he was creating controversy unnecessarily, impolitic in his tone, and that's certainly not the job of a COS. I speculated that Pelosi probably suggested as much to AOC...apparently the reporting confirms that happened. Made sense to me!

On your tone, I suggest you take a chill pill. I'm really not your enemy.

[admin]

So who the hell granted you the power.... your turd does also stink.

Deep breaths, Cradle. Deep breaths.

[MDlaxfan76]

Something about cred.

Again, if you think I'm missing an important point from the WAPO piece, please do excerpt it. Happy to consider it.

In general, their reporting is at least 'journalism'.
Their journalistic ethics are sound, if not absolutely perfect in the execution all of the time.

Same for WSJ and NYT.

Opinion articles and editorials are another matter.
Those can be significantly slanted, based on the specific writer or editorial team.

[ABV 8.3%]

Always good to have a reminder of the latter point, cradle.
Yes, mine stinks like anyone else.

However, on what's credible and what's not, perhaps you missed the earlier discussion in which I provided some third party citations from orgs that examine such questions of degree of bias and the degree to which a publication traffics in misstating, misrepresenting facts for political purpose.

MediaBIAS.org/ van Zandt !! Perhaps YOU missed the links that were posted, discrediting, valueless designation from various sources. Including the CJR. (Columbia U. )

The consensus of those orgs is that Blaze if far right biased and not a credible source. These orgs similarly rate left wing rags, just biased hard left.

But are they credible?

This specific discussion I was having with ABV involved how the Blaze article had misrepresented what AOC's former COS had said on a very specific matter. It exaggerated for effect, twisting the truth. No, it was not. You and the MSM you value, labeled the twitter exchange stuff as racist. I provided you with the original source of his actual quote, NOT an opinionated slant by the Blaze as you claim. Just delete history and you get a new 3. Credit goes to other posters on that simple trick.
However, I agreed that the guy should have been moved out of the COS role, as he was creating controversy unnecessarily, impolitic in his tone, and that's certainly not the job of a COS. I speculated that Pelosi probably suggested as much to AOC...apparently the reporting confirms that happened. Made sense to me!

On your tone, I suggest you take a chill pill. I'm really not your enemy.

Just saying......but when you pull the "I will use the ignore function" argument, it pretty passive aggressive behavior. Sprinkled with a heavy smattering of arrogance. Maybe you don't even realize it.

[MDlaxfan76]

Always good to have a reminder of the latter point, cradle.
Yes, mine stinks like anyone else.

However, on what's credible and what's not, perhaps you missed the earlier discussion in which I provided some third party citations from orgs that examine such questions of degree of bias and the degree to which a publication traffics in misstating, misrepresenting facts for political purpose.

MediaBIAS.org/ van Zandt !! Perhaps YOU missed the links that were posted, discrediting, valueless designation from various sources. Including the CJR. (Columbia U. )

The consensus of those orgs is that Blaze if far right biased and not a credible source. These orgs similarly rate left wing rags, just biased hard left.

But are they credible?

This specific discussion I was having with ABV involved how the Blaze article had misrepresented what AOC's former COS had said on a very specific matter. It exaggerated for effect, twisting the truth. No, it was not. You and the MSM you value, labeled the twitter exchange stuff as racist. I provided you with the original source of his actual quote, NOT an opinionated slant by the Blaze as you claim. Just delete history and you get a new 3. Credit goes to other posters on that simple trick.
However, I agreed that the guy should have been moved out of the COS role, as he was creating controversy unnecessarily, impolitic in his tone, and that's certainly not the job of a COS. I speculated that Pelosi probably suggested as much to AOC...apparently the reporting confirms that happened. Made sense to me!

On your tone, I suggest you take a chill pill. I'm really not your enemy.

Just saying......but when you pull the "I will use the ignore function" argument, it pretty passive aggressive behavior. Sprinkled with a heavy smattering of arrogance. Maybe you don't even realize it.

Nor am I your enemy, ABV.

You are free to consider my views to be “arrogant “ or me, and you are also certainly free to ignore them, including the ‘ignore’ function of this site. Fine with me.

You and I disagree about what the former COS’s words meant. I explained what I believe they meant and why I believe the Blaze misrepresented them. I think I’m right, you think I’m wrong. Why get into such a swivet over that?

Yes, the Blaze is widely considered to be far right biased, other sites are considered to be far left. Some sites have strong journalistic standards, some are quite weak. Should we not be most skeptical of sites, left or right, that are less strong on this dimension?

I took a little look around the Blaze to get a sense for myself as to whether they are indeed hard right biased, and found that to indeed be the case. There are sites even further to the right, but the Blaze certainly has a strong pattern of right bias, and quite a bit of twisting truth into something no longer ‘truth’.

You are free to disagree and explain why if you’d like.

[MDlaxfan76]

BTW, ABV, I’ve never threatened anyone about using the ignore function on here, though I did let a poster, RRR, know that I’d done so because his posts had devolved into such incoherency, yet long, that I found it easier to see what others were saying by using that function and only opening his posts afterwards. But I do read his posts and engage with him. I certainly don’t consider him to be an ‘enemy ‘.

The only other poster I did that with is a poster who is reliably spewing hate and bigotry. I prefer not to open a thread to that level of anger and ignorance. I still can open those posts or see them in others’ response to him, but I prefer not to feed the troll.

I don’t find your posts to be something I’d prefer to ignore, but I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t resort to personal insults. I’ll give you the same respect.