LaxPower Back-Up Stick

seacoaster wrote:Acosta has a good bit of evidence to justify his question (and more every day and, almost certainly, tonight at a little after 9:00). The only silly thing is why ask it of the principal lying alternative facts hack in this Administration.

youthathletics wrote:

seacoaster wrote:Acosta has a good bit of evidence to justify his question (and more every day and, almost certainly, tonight at a little after 9:00). The only silly thing is why ask it of the principal lying alternative facts hack in this Administration.

What evidence does Acosta have on the speech tonight? Other than the talking points from CNN that they should not air the feed until afterwards so they can fact check it. Yet I am willing to bet CNN will go live with Chuckie and Nancy and go full out counter everything immediately following.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:28 pm
Where we could and maybe should take a look at ourselves and do better is in the area of tone. To be withering toward him is frequently called for, and fine, but to be condescending is probably counterproductive. To make the occasional jokes is no problem, certainly on the Opinion pages; we can all use the levity. But to be smugly mocking is different.

I want to watch my own tone more carefully going forward, because my goal isn’t to hand ammunition to Trump’s supporters. It’s to get them to see him more clearly, so that we can all move on from him and this dark period as quickly as possible. So that we can return to a better definition of American greatness."

His behavior compels coverage more negative than usual. But negative doesn’t mean anti-Trump, because we’re not driven by some partisan animus toward him. We’re driven by the way he behaves — by his own words, his own deeds. We’re driven by the truth. Negative coverage of Trump is honest coverage of Trump.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:28 pm I get a newsletter from Frank Bruni of the NY Times every Wednesday, which I sometime read and sometimes don't read. Bruni is emphatically a left of center guy, but he is basically an honest dealer (again, to me, anyway), and he is a very good writer (by this I mean his command of the language). This is from the one I received today:

"I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the relationship between the media and Trump and about the bind I mentioned above. I plan to delve deeper into all of that in my column for this coming weekend. And I reflected on it last weekend in an appearance on Brian Stelter’s “Reliable Sources” on CNN. Stelter noted that in a forthcoming book, “Merchants of Truth,” Jill Abramson describes some of The Times’s coverage as “unmistakably anti-Trump.” Abramson is a former executive editor of the newspaper; there were years during which I reported to her, and I considered and still consider her a friend. But I politely disagree with her, as I explained to Stelter.

Before I explain why, I should make clear that Abramson in her book has plenty of compliments for The Times, including for tough stories about Trump. She also has at least as many quibbles with coverage of Hillary Clinton as she does about coverage of Trump. Her take is complicated and nuanced, and she makes many excellent points.

But in regard to her or anyone else’s characterization of The Times and other mainstream news organizations as anti-Trump, I’d say this: We’re in a tough, challenging situation.
How do we cover this utterly singular politician — and the singular magnitude of his falsehoods, his boasts, his shady dealings, his assault on norms, his areas of ignorance, his amorality — without seeming to go off the deep end? How do we do justice to all of that without coming across as, and turning into, lavishly derisive broken records?

His behavior compels coverage more negative than usual. But negative doesn’t mean anti-Trump, because we’re not driven by some partisan animus toward him. We’re driven by the way he behaves — by his own words, his own deeds. We’re driven by the truth. Negative coverage of Trump is honest coverage of Trump.

Where we could and maybe should take a look at ourselves and do better is in the area of tone. To be withering toward him is frequently called for, and fine, but to be condescending is probably counterproductive. To make the occasional jokes is no problem, certainly on the Opinion pages; we can all use the levity. But to be smugly mocking is different.

I want to watch my own tone more carefully going forward, because my goal isn’t to hand ammunition to Trump’s supporters. It’s to get them to see him more clearly, so that we can all move on from him and this dark period as quickly as possible. So that we can return to a better definition of American greatness."

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:29 am

youthathletics wrote:

seacoaster wrote:Trump made the misleading claim that Customs and Border Protection agents “encounter thousands of illegal immigrants” every day trying to enter the U.S. The average number of apprehensions at the border is less than 2,000 a day.

So more than 1 thousand isn't "Thousands" in forumspeak

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:48 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:29 am

youthathletics wrote:

seacoaster wrote:Trump made the misleading claim that Customs and Border Protection agents “encounter thousands of illegal immigrants” every day trying to enter the U.S. The average number of apprehensions at the border is less than 2,000 a day.

So more than 1 thousand isn't "Thousands" in forumspeak

If you're asking that question seriously, 6ft, do you really think that less than 2 is "multiple"???
If so, you need a little return to school.

It's not plural until it's 2 or more. Less than 2 just ain't multiple or plural.

By "thousands", plural, Trump is implying at the very minimum two thousand, with the possibility of meaning many more.

But facts, being stubborn things, belie Trump's statement.
Trump exaggerates "for effect", but it's surely not an attempt to be accurate or truthful.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:48 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:29 am

youthathletics wrote:

seacoaster wrote:Trump made the misleading claim that Customs and Border Protection agents “encounter thousands of illegal immigrants” every day trying to enter the U.S. The average number of apprehensions at the border is less than 2,000 a day.

So more than 1 thousand isn't "Thousands" in forumspeak

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:01 am https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-w ... spartandhp So the FLP mainstream media is grudgingly admitting that they screwed the pooch on this story. I hope this young man is compensated for the abuse and torment brought upon him by the FLP mainstream media. He was standing there waiting for a bus to pick him up which he and the other students were instructed to do. The FLP nut jobs forced this confrontation on a 16 year old high school student and then passed judgement on him by how he reacted to the FLP provocation. Hell in NYS you can be 16 years old and beat some body to death and you will be acknowledged as a innocent young child that was not responsible for his/her actions. Not if you are a 16 year old high school student wearing a MAGA... you are scum in the eyes of the hate filled racist far left folks. The only thing missing here is that one of these ANTIFA piles of chit was not on site to beat the hell out of this young lad to give him the FLP indoctrination about what love trumps hate is all about. https://www.ny.gov/programs/raise-age-0