Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 06-22-2019, 04:00 PM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
That being said, if Biden loses the primary or the election, it won't be due to his handsiness. It will be due to comments like his recent "Nothing will fundamentally change", which he said to wealthy donors. Yes, the context was that he may need to raise taxes, but that doing so won't significantly impact the living standards of the rich -- but this is going to get spun every which way. It's his "47% of the people" comment.
LOL. I feel like a ghost.
  #502  
Old 06-22-2019, 04:14 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This is the second time that Biden has been victimized by an out-of-context quote from the frothing batshit insane wing of the party.
Pardon me, but the source of this quote is a Washington Post reporter. It's possible that Wiegel got it wrong, but your accusation is FALSE.
  #503  
Old 06-22-2019, 04:37 PM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 374
You can leave it fully in context in a transcript and people will still grab it because they are either unable to understand what was being said in a conversational manner, or intentionally ignoring it.

That just how it is now. There's nothing you can do about it.

This would be the annotated version:

“I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money,” he said. “The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done [raise your taxes]. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s [None of your's] standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change." [the second part of that sentence is merely a repetition of the first part]

So:
You're gonna have your taxes raised
The point of which should not be to punish you, but to address income inequality, with is a real threat (referred to elsewhere in the remarks)
You and I both know you can afford it

NOT:
Don't worry, we're not gonna touch you
  #504  
Old 06-22-2019, 04:55 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/st...54582456590336

"This is an out of context quote. I read the transcript. Biden was talking about raising taxes on the wealthy by taking their trump tax breaks away. The sentence quoted was to donors he told to their face would pay more. I’m neutral in this race but I will call out cheap shots"
Wiegel mentioned that:
Quote:
But telling rich donors that his agenda won’t shake things up too much — even in context of saying he wants to prevent unrest by raising their taxes a little — could hurt.
Italics mine. So he provided the very context that Gov. Dean said was missing.
  #505  
Old 06-22-2019, 05:09 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Wiegel mentioned that: Italics mine. So he provided the very context that Gov. Dean said was missing.
Uh, huh. Biden says he wants to roll back the Trump tax cuts and you think the takeaway should be that he told rich guys not to worry about it.
  #506  
Old 06-22-2019, 05:10 PM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 374
Wiegel's OK, but he only put the context in a sub-tweet. That's what wanting to have a hot take on Twitter does to you.
  #507  
Old 06-22-2019, 05:45 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
... Beto mitigates that by live streaming most of his events and uploading footage onto Facebook.
ALL the Democrats should be doing that. If they don't they're just asking to be misrepresented.


Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
Wiegel's OK, but he only put the context in a sub-tweet. That's what wanting to have a hot take on Twitter does to you.
Exactly right. People trying to earn a living may care about having a reputation for integrity, but they care about re-tweets more. Re-tweets (and similar social-media scoring features) are the metric by which they live.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It's sad that some, including some here, are so willing to jump on spreading these out of context crap cheap shots. Such is the path to Trump winning, not by his smears but by smears from within the tent.

The fact that others running (and their operatives) are trying to get to the top by smearing Biden, rather than by convincing those of us who are saying Biden now but not married to the idea that they have what it takes to take down Trump even more solidly and even maybe have some coat tails, is ... unfortunate. It is not the way to win us over. It is the way to disgust more on the process and decrease turnout when we need it.
Yes to all this.

The one and two-percent scoring presidential candidates are desperate for air time, and they know that they won't get it by announcing they have a new plan for dealing with pharmaceutical prices. They will get that airtime by making it known they're going to trash-talk a fellow-Democrat.

And so, many of them are doing it. They may try to couch it in 'this is about values' and other high-minded excuses, but it's about getting those minutes on TV. And so they pile on the front runner---who is duly weakened by the attacks.


The really sad thing is that this is another example of that tragic lesson of history: authoritarians (and would-be authoritarians) gain power due to the help they receive from their opponents---who are providing that help completely unintentionally. Human nature and its inevitable incentives lead the opposition to weaken itself, giving the despot invaluable aid.

Last edited by Sherrerd; 06-22-2019 at 05:47 PM.
  #508  
Old 06-22-2019, 05:56 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,635
I don’t like Biden, but this “nothing will fundamentally change” distortion is total fucking bullshit.
  #509  
Old 06-22-2019, 06:00 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I don’t like Biden, but this “nothing will fundamentally change” distortion is total fucking bullshit.
I feel the same (on both counts).

Biden's competitors, or some of them, anyway, are showing signs of being willing to be deliberately misleading for personal gain.

Bad sign. Bad look. Bad idea.
  #510  
Old 06-22-2019, 06:07 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
LOL. I feel like ...
Huh. Any one else just feel a chill? Weird.

  #511  
Old 06-22-2019, 09:05 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Pardon me, but the source of this quote is a Washington Post reporter. It's possible that Wiegel got it wrong, but your accusation is FALSE.
The fact that he's a Washington Post reporter means...not a fucking thing, mate.

Yes, I suppose I am gracious enough to excuse you. You're excused -- excused first of all for copy/pasting the words of a journalist who was fucking stupid enough to vote and publicly support and advocate or the candidacy of Ralph Fucking Nader, the guy who basically helped give us 8 years of Bush, 8 years of war on terror, who gave us Iraq, Dick Cheney, and a Recession.

https://reason.com/2008/10/29/whos-getting-your-vote-2

Quote:
Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? Last time, it was that guy from Massachusetts who hated the troops and lied about his Vietnam service in a French accent. In 2000 I not only voted for Ralph Nader but served as an electoral college elector for him in the state of Delaware.
"Well like yah, but we got Obama after that! Fight the power!"

That's how these fucking egg-heads think. These fucking blow-up-the-system with Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, and Oprah? Who next - Stone Cold Steve Austin? But wait, it gets better: he registered Republican so he could vote for...Ron Paul (everyone's favorite conspiracy theorist, Gold Standard, anti-semite, and racist).

Yes, you're excused for copy/pasting words of an anarcho, nihilist hack who deliberately - yes, deliberately - misconstrued statements because he doesn't like the man who phrased them and doesn't trust people who read his bullshit enough to let them make their own decisions. He is the very fucking personification...of FAKE NEWS.

And the fact that the Washington Post hired him back after firing him once before is their own fucking credibility problem.

You're excused.
  #512  
Old 06-22-2019, 09:25 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,635
Weigel voted for Ralph Nader AND Ron Paul?!?
  #513  
Old 06-22-2019, 09:54 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
To go back to what I mentioned before, if the Washington Post wants to continue to be viewed as the same kind of objective, without fear or favor news outlet, it should drop Weigel immediately. It never should have hired him to begin with. Otherwise, they're fake news.
  #514  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:58 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
If this was Bernie Sanders this footage would be viral all over Social Media. It's Biden though so after two months it has fewer than 500 views.

It took me 5 minutes to find this video on youtube so why have paid researchers who can find letters from the 1970s not shared this. Vetting involves sharing the good and the bad. And this from Biden was damn excellent.

https://youtu.be/nEJ8bRnk_QE
Thanks for posting this! I think Biden should use it in his campaign ads.(*)

Has the "Biden, Trump? Same-same!" contingent commented on this video?

(* - Or not. One thing the video makes clear is that Biden was once a much younger man.)
  #515  
Old 06-23-2019, 05:40 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The fact that he's a Washington Post reporter means...not a fucking thing, mate.
Well yes it does. It means I didn't get this quote "from the frothing batshit insane wing of the party," in your words. I got it from a news reporter at one of the more reliable news outlets.
Quote:
Yes, I suppose I am gracious enough to excuse you. You're excused -- excused first of all for copy/pasting the words of a journalist who was fucking stupid enough to vote and publicly support and advocate or the candidacy of Ralph Fucking Nader
So a guy was an elector for Nader when he'd just turned 19, and apparently for you, that is what defines him 19 years later.

I think that says WAY more about you than it does about him.
  #516  
Old 06-23-2019, 05:55 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Weigel voted for Ralph Nader AND Ron Paul?!?
Whatever he was at 19, he seems to have been since then a mixture of libertarian and moderate Republican from the days when there were moderate Republicans.

It's clear that asahi's implication that he's one of those too-liberal-to-vote-Democratic types is total bullshit.
  #517  
Old 06-23-2019, 06:43 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Thanks for posting this! I think Biden should use it in his campaign ads.(*)

Has the "Biden, Trump? Same-same!" contingent commented on this video?

(* - Or not. One thing the video makes clear is that Biden was once a much younger man.)
The "Biden, Trump? Same-same!" contingent haven't watched the video clearly. That's a shame not only because they are ignoring/avoiding his good acts, but this one actually led to direct action. Per the description:

Quote:
Shortly after this meeting the US Senate passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act. A set of sanctions with provisions accelerating the dismantling of the regime. Ronald Reagan vetoed it but his veto was overridden by Congress - the first and only time in the 20th Century a Presidential veto was overridden.
  #518  
Old 06-23-2019, 07:01 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
[QUOTE=RTFirefly;21712502]Well yes it does. It means I didn't get this quote "from the frothing batshit insane wing of the party," in your words. I got it from a news reporter at one of the more reliable news outlets.

You got it from a person's twitter feed, okay? That's where you got it from. And the twitter feed belongs to someone with a history of fringe politics and accusations of biased reporting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
So a guy was an elector for Nader when he'd just turned 19, and apparently for you, that is what defines him 19 years later.
If he weren't wildly distorting the message of more mainstream candidates, I would be willing to put his past behind him. But when he irresponsibly truncates quotes and doesn't correct himself even when people on his feed corrected him...then that's on him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I think that says WAY more about you than it does about him.
Stop falling for left wing activist hack jobs. It's not so hard.
  #519  
Old 06-23-2019, 07:16 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Whatever he was at 19, he seems to have been since then a mixture of libertarian and moderate Republican from the days when there were moderate Republicans.

It's clear that asahi's implication that he's one of those too-liberal-to-vote-Democratic types is total bullshit.
Let's see, he wrote for Slate, and he wrote about "Progressive Rock". Then when he rejoins the Post later, he gets into another controversy over tweeting a photo of an empty arena before a Trump event and then posts it insinuating that the event was a dud. Nah, he doesn't have bias or credibility problems.
  #520  
Old 06-23-2019, 09:11 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
[QUOTE=asahi;21712541]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Well yes it does. It means I didn't get this quote "from the frothing batshit insane wing of the party," in your words. I got it from a news reporter at one of the more reliable news outlets.

You got it from a person's twitter feed, okay? That's where you got it from.
And the person is a reporter for the Washington Post.
Quote:
And the twitter feed belongs to someone with a history of fringe politics and accusations of biased reporting.
Please summarize that history. Show the substance behind these words you've been throwing around.
Quote:
Stop falling for left wing activist hack jobs. It's not so hard.
Don't worry, I'm not falling for anything you say.
  #521  
Old 06-23-2019, 09:14 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
Don't know or care specifically about this writer's past. A Twitter post by a reporter, any reporter, of a single line out of any context, is NOT something vetted by the newspaper, and IS something that anyone who is not looking to spread any smear that comports with their bias should pause before spreading. The fact that some here jump on spreading the smear also stands on its own.

As to this specific reporter - his past reckless behaviors seem to be consistent with this but are not required to pass judgement. It was clearly taking a single line out of context to twist its meaning, even with his follow up tweet (which still distorted the context and the meaning).

Someone having a job as a reporter does not mean that their Twitter feed does or does not represent frothing batshit.

The story here is not the statement itself, or even that Biden went into a room of wealthy potential donors and straight up told them to their faces and checkbooks that the breaks they have gotten under Trump have to go, maybe more ("we can disagree at the margins") that they know it is what needs to happen, and that they can afford it without fundamentally changing anything about how they live. Basically that as patriotic Americans and good people they can suck it up just fine. And that it MUST happen.

Which something for someone accused of being too cozy with Wall Street to be doing.

The story here is those within the tent are trying to kneecap the person most likely to end up as their standard-bearer with distortions, smears, and cheap shots, and that such efforts so easily finds those eager to help spread such crap.

You want to suppress turnout in the general this sort of dirty pool is the way to do that.

You want to argue that trying to work with anyone in the GOP is pointless, that the path forward is handling them as evil that must be destroyed with no negotiation and no compromise? Fine. Most voters would disagree but fine. You want to argue that he is too moderate on some issues for your tastes? Fine. Those are fair discussions and very good reasons to support someone else. That he does not inspire you, and likely others, enough? Also very fair, and something that is part of my hesitation about him too. Even that you think the 1%ers should be demonized and taxed to the point that it changes their fundamental lifestyles, that anything less is too little, is fair to say. Many would agree with you, and that message might have some sales value. That someone else is better because of how effective they'd be and/or why they have a great chance at winning the must win states and bringing along coat tails in states that have winnable Senate races and elsewhere? Please convince me!

But passing along out of context one line cheap shots? NOT okay. Even if the Twitter feed it comes from is someone who is a reporter as his day job.

Last edited by DSeid; 06-23-2019 at 09:16 AM.
  #522  
Old 06-23-2019, 09:21 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Let's see, he wrote for Slate, and he wrote about "Progressive Rock".
Quote:
Wow, he wrote about 1970s groups like Yes? Definitely a left-wing activist!
Then when he rejoins the Post later, he gets into another controversy over tweeting a photo of an empty arena before a Trump event and then posts it insinuating that the event was a dud. Nah, he doesn't have bias or credibility problems.
His response to that is on his Wikipedia page. But what do you care? Your goal is to put the worst spin on this guy that you can, facts be damned, because that seems to be what you need to do to score a minor point in a debate thread.
  #523  
Old 06-23-2019, 09:24 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
And the person is a reporter for the Washington Post. Please summarize that history. Show the substance behind these words you've been throwing around.
Don't worry, I'm not falling for anything you say.
Maybe you should do a cursory Wikipedia read and follow some of the links at the bottom of the page. Look, he's your hero apparently, so you can defend him. But I'm not doing your homework for you.

Last edited by asahi; 06-23-2019 at 09:24 AM.
  #524  
Old 06-23-2019, 09:25 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
His response to that is on his Wikipedia page. But what do you care? Your goal is to put the worst spin on this guy that you can, facts be damned, because that seems to be what you need to do to score a minor point in a debate thread.
Yeah, putting the worst spin on the guy who took comments out of context and has a history of doing questionable things as a reporter.

Bro, you gotta know when to fold. Stop taking ridiculous positions and defend better journalists.
  #525  
Old 06-23-2019, 09:28 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Someone having a job as a reporter does not mean that their Twitter feed does or does not represent frothing batshit.
The WaPo, unsurprisingly, has a policy concerning its reporters' social media use:
Quote:
When using networks such as Facebook, Twitter etc., for reporting or for our personal lives, we must protect our professional integrity and remember: Washington Post journalists are always Washington Post journalists.

Social-media accounts maintained by Washington Post journalists reflect upon the reputation and credibility of the newsroom. Even as we express ourselves in more personal and informal ways to forge better connections with our readers, we must be ever mindful of preserving the reputation of The Washington Post for journalistic excellence, fairness and independence. Every comment or link we share should be considered public information, regardless of privacy settings.

Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could objectively be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism.
Just sayin'.
  #526  
Old 06-23-2019, 10:08 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
In that case then he should be subject to disciplinary action.

And obviously that policy is worth as much as I'd suspect it would be worth.
  #527  
Old 06-23-2019, 10:11 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 226
The funny thing is right wingers are running a clip of him telling Joy Reid if elected he will roll back the tax cuts and raise taxes on the wealthy

https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/17/j...peal-tax-cuts/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...es-white-house

https://www.atr.org/biden-first-thin...trump-tax-cuts

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4M3NeDlfMQU

Last edited by Boycott; 06-23-2019 at 10:14 AM.
  #528  
Old 06-23-2019, 11:30 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
RTF, I'm still just sayin' that a Tweet should not be considered the same as an article, no matter what official policy may be, and I'll even say further.

No matter what the source a single line posted without any context should make one minimally wonder what the context was. Jumping to spread it immediately because you want to besmirch someone instead is at best lousy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twitter by Civil War Wiegel in 1863
Well this is what will haunt Abe Lincoln going forward! In an event intended to honor those who have died in service he instead said - "We can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow, this ground."
Re-tweeted round the world read by any who never heard or read the rest of the address at all.

And he did not tweet anything false so all was good!
  #529  
Old 06-23-2019, 11:40 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
RTF, I'm still just sayin' that a Tweet should not be considered the same as an article, no matter what official policy may be, and I'll even say further.

No matter what the source a single line posted without any context should make one minimally wonder what the context was. Jumping to spread it immediately because you want to besmirch someone instead is at best lousy.

Re-tweeted round the world read by any who never heard or read the rest of the address at all.

And he did not tweet anything false so all was good!
Seriously, editors have a purpose. Journalists posting shit on Twitter, even if they do it as "representatives" of the organization they work for, don't have that filter preventing them from posting inaccurate/false/misleading/biased shit.

ETA: I can't believe some people are spending this much time slagging a Dem candidate (the front-runner, no less) rather than posting stuff to promote the candidate of their choice. I get it, you don't like Biden. So convince me of whom I should vote for.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 06-23-2019 at 11:42 AM.
  #530  
Old 06-23-2019, 01:01 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
In that case then he should be subject to disciplinary action.
For what, precisely?
  #531  
Old 06-23-2019, 01:05 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
The funny thing is right wingers are running a clip of him telling Joy Reid if elected he will roll back the tax cuts and raise taxes on the wealthy
Do I have this straight? Biden is condemned on the left because he will NOT rollback the Trump tax cuts on the rich, and condemned on the right because he WILL rollback those tax cuts.

I don't think it's too early to predict the winner of the 2020 Presidential election: Russia.

Last edited by septimus; 06-23-2019 at 01:08 PM.
  #532  
Old 06-23-2019, 01:10 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Yeah, putting the worst spin on the guy who took comments out of context and has a history of doing questionable things as a reporter.

Bro, you gotta know when to fold. Stop taking ridiculous positions and defend better journalists.
Could you expand on that history? All I see is the bit about that one photo, there seems to have been a reasonable explanation of why it was just a goof, but you and DSeid are going on as if it's a done deal that this guy has a history of dubious behavior as a reporter.

Oh, and he wrote about progressive rock. ROFLOL!!

I'm not defending Wiegel. I don't need to. Nobody's made a case against him; you and DSeid are just handwaving without specifics. All I'm doing is pointing that out.
  #533  
Old 06-23-2019, 01:39 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
RTF, I'm still just sayin' that a Tweet should not be considered the same as an article, no matter what official policy may be, and I'll even say further.
Well, true. All I'm saying is that a reporter for a major media organization is still a reasonable source with respect to facts.

I am pointing out that that if he's a "anarcho, nihilist hack" or part of "the frothing batshit insane wing of the party" or the sort of lefty who votes for Jill Stein to heighten the contradictions, no evidence to that effect has been presented in this thread.

The claim you're making is that he took that quote out of context. Can I ask: did I skim too fast through the post where that context was provided, in order to back up that claim?
  #534  
Old 06-23-2019, 01:41 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Do I have this straight? Biden is condemned on the left because he will NOT rollback the Trump tax cuts on the rich, and condemned on the right because he WILL rollback those tax cuts.

I don't think it's too early to predict the winner of the 2020 Presidential election: Russia.
Correct.

However the people on the right are responding to video footage of him saying he will rollback tax cuts. The people on the left are responding to reporters tweets from a private fundraiser quoting "nothing will fundamentally change". No video, and no transcript posted until after the event.

Quote:
“I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money. The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.”
1) "We may not want to demonize anybody who has made money"
2) "You all know in your gut what has to be done"
3) "We can disagree in the margins"
4) "No one's standard of living will change"

1) It is not a crime to be rich
2) But the rich must pay their fair share
3) You might disagree with the rate of tax
4) But increasing your taxes won't fundamentally change your standard of living
  #535  
Old 06-23-2019, 01:49 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
Do the polls break down by age ? I assume Sanders is still popular with young people and it seems Biden might be getting the votes of people who are boomers and above. Sanders probably is losing votes to younger candidates like Pete B, Harris , Beto, etc.
  #536  
Old 06-23-2019, 02:08 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
For what, precisely?
For the shittiness that you aided and abetted.

In his case violating the code as put forth in that policy instructing their writers to, even in their own social media accounts, refrain from posting that which "could objectively be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism."

Posting a single line out of its context in a manner which distorted and misrepresented its clear intended meaning within the context, in order to imply a false harmful understanding of its meaning is, objectively, dirty pool unfair crap that "reflects a political bias."

Again, this behavior stands on its own as not meeting the standards of ethical reporting, no matter what his past biases or behaviors have or have not been.

No you are not defending Wiegel, or even yourself. There really is no defense to be made. It is shitty to do that and the eagerness that Dems disgustingly repost misleading crap is Trump's best hope that whoever ends up winning the nomination is damaged goods to the point that he can eke out another win.

Again, we get you do not like Biden. That you do not agree that there should be any play to trying to rebuild bipartisanship, to work with people who you in other ways find despicable when such is possible. That you prefer the more apocalyptic vision of big ideas to completely remake it all, with full awareness that without any bipartisanship they cannot happen.

Fine arguments to make and fine to try to convince the rest of us why your preferred candidate has the goods to win and to execute once having won.

Maybe try to stick with those, will ya?


Links to the context have already been given in this thread, included from Howard Dean.


Disagree with him if you want about demonizing the very wealthy. No question making the wealthy the evil other to be villified is potentially as effective as villifying immigrants and minorities has been for Trump. Something to that approach.

Argue if you want that any taxation on the wealthiest that does not cause them real pain, that does not fundamentally change their quality and standard of living, is too small.

But misrepresenting his going to a room of wealthy potential donors and speaking truth to them - that he does not think they are the enemy, that they will see a reversal of Trump's cuts under him and maybe more, but that they, as patriotic Americans can handle that without it really impacting how they live, that it is not to punish them for a crime of having money, but because it is something that they all know needs to be done, because the level of income and wealth inequality in this country is bad for us all, them included. "Not a joke." Misrepresenting that as reassuring them that nothing is going to change? That's shitty. Unethical for a journalist and shitty for a poster.
  #537  
Old 06-23-2019, 02:25 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
ETA: I can't believe some people are spending this much time slagging a Dem candidate (the front-runner, no less) rather than posting stuff to promote the candidate of their choice. I get it, you don't like Biden. So convince me of whom I should vote for.
...hold on a second: this is the Joe Biden thread right? Isn't it entirely appropriate to post criticisms and critique of Joe Biden in this thread? Why should people be using this thread to convince you to "vote for somebody else?"

I look at the twitter post you are complaining about, and I look at it in the fuller context of what Biden actually said and I'm not seeing the problem. In this very thread UnwittingAmericans had to literally invent context for Biden's words. But that misses the point. Biden didn't say the words UnwittingAmericans imagines Biden intended precisely because he wanted to send a different message to the people he was talking too. He could have said precisely what he is on the record as saying elsewhere. But he didn't.

A year ago I was all-on-board for a Biden presidency. He was my number one candidate. Based on the things he has done over the last year I have completely changed my mind. And I haven't changed my mind because of "falling for left wing activist hack jobs." Trump and co have severally damaged America at a structural level. They've gutted the Federal government, they've stripped funding, they've purged agencies and replaced them with loyalists. Biden has shown nothing in the last year to indicate that he understand the scale of what he needs to do to be able to deal with this. It appears he is woefully out of touch.

There isn't anything wrong or disloyal about expressing this opinion: especially in a thread that is dedicated to discussing Joe Biden. This shouldn't be a "cheerleading" thread. And if you truly want the best candidate to stand against Trump then you really should be open to not only people being critical of Biden but being open to changing your mind. It isn't our job to "convince you to vote for another candidate." If people hold the opinion that Biden is unsuitable to be the next President of the United States then this is the right place to argue that. And its a mistake to reflexly dismiss that criticism as "slagging off."
  #538  
Old 06-23-2019, 02:31 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
But misrepresenting his going to a room of wealthy potential donors and speaking truth to them - that he does not think they are the enemy, that they will see a reversal of Trump's cuts under him and maybe more, but that they, as patriotic Americans can handle that without it really impacting how they live, that it is not to punish them for a crime of having money, but because it is something that they all know needs to be done, because the level of income and wealth inequality in this country is bad for us all, them included. "Not a joke." Misrepresenting that as reassuring them that nothing is going to change? That's shitty. Unethical for a journalist and shitty for a poster.
...for fucks sakes it was a fucking tweet. And after having examined what was said in context I can't really disagree with his "hot take." There was nothing unethical about what he posted, certainly nothing that would be actionable.
  #539  
Old 06-23-2019, 02:51 PM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...hold on a second: this is the Joe Biden thread right? Isn't it entirely appropriate to post criticisms and critique of Joe Biden in this thread? Why should people be using this thread to convince you to "vote for somebody else?"

I look at the twitter post you are complaining about, and I look at it in the fuller context of what Biden actually said and I'm not seeing the problem. In this very thread UnwittingAmericans had to literally invent context for Biden's words. But that misses the point. Biden didn't say the words UnwittingAmericans imagines Biden intended precisely because he wanted to send a different message to the people he was talking too. He could have said precisely what he is on the record as saying elsewhere. But he didn't.

A year ago I was all-on-board for a Biden presidency. He was my number one candidate. Based on the things he has done over the last year I have completely changed my mind. And I haven't changed my mind because of "falling for left wing activist hack jobs." Trump and co have severally damaged America at a structural level. They've gutted the Federal government, they've stripped funding, they've purged agencies and replaced them with loyalists. Biden has shown nothing in the last year to indicate that he understand the scale of what he needs to do to be able to deal with this. It appears he is woefully out of touch.

There isn't anything wrong or disloyal about expressing this opinion: especially in a thread that is dedicated to discussing Joe Biden. This shouldn't be a "cheerleading" thread. And if you truly want the best candidate to stand against Trump then you really should be open to not only people being critical of Biden but being open to changing your mind. It isn't our job to "convince you to vote for another candidate." If people hold the opinion that Biden is unsuitable to be the next President of the United States then this is the right place to argue that. And its a mistake to reflexly dismiss that criticism as "slagging off."
As usual, you fall into the "intentionally ignore" rather than "unable to understand" category.
  #540  
Old 06-23-2019, 02:54 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
As usual, you fall into the "intentionally ignore" rather than "unable to understand" category.
..."as usual?" Can you be a bit more specific about what it is I "usually do?"

And what have I "intentionally ignored?"
  #541  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:11 PM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
..."as usual?" Can you be a bit more specific about what it is I "usually do?"

And what have I "intentionally ignored?"
If your GPS told you "bear left at the church," you would get out and spend an hour videoing yourself searching the church looking for the bear, just so you could put it in an angry-tweet @Magellan.
  #542  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:12 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
... Based on the things he has done over the last year I have completely changed my mind. And I haven't changed my mind because of "falling for left wing activist hack jobs." Trump and co have severally damaged America at a structural level. They've gutted the Federal government, they've stripped funding, they've purged agencies and replaced them with loyalists. Biden has shown nothing in the last year to indicate that he understand the scale of what he needs to do to be able to deal with this. It appears he is woefully out of touch.
Let's see if I got this straight:

Joe Biden spent eight years a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Before that he spent 36 years as a Senator, serving as Chairmen of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction. He's spoken in no uncertain terms of his antipathy for Trump, and of how Trump's damage needs to be undone.

And now you, Banquet Bear, inform us that it is not Biden but Banquet Bear who has the better idea of how to proceed if/when the Trumpist grip on power is overturned. Is that about it?

I would be laughing, were it not that this level of pretension and ignorance is rampant in post-literate America, and may present a serious obstacle to social or political recovery.

Last edited by septimus; 06-23-2019 at 03:14 PM.
  #543  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:15 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
If your GPS told you "bear left at the church," you would get out and spend an hour videoing yourself searching the church looking for the bear, just so you could put it in an angry-tweet @Magellan.
...rather than personal ad-hominems, can you either answer my question or address the substance of my post?
  #544  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:22 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You want to argue that trying to work with anyone in the GOP is pointless, that the path forward is handling them as evil that must be destroyed with no negotiation and no compromise? Fine. Most voters would disagree but fine.
I give up. Your repeated misstating of my position here leaves you in rather poor shape, AFAIAC, to complain at such length about Wiegel allegedly doing something similar to Biden in just one tweet.

I keep saying that I have no objection to trying to work with the GOP - the problem is when your plan, two years out, is to win 8-10 GOP votes (or more) to overcome a filibuster. The problem is reliance on working with the GOP as the way you're going to get things done, when Mitch McConnell in 2021 will in all likelihood behave the same way Mitch McConnell has from 2007 to the present, and a naive belief that once Trump's gone, Mitch will not only forswear the foolish ways he adopted from 2017-present, but also the same foolish but effective ways he adopted during the previous decade.

If Elizabeth Warren becomes our 46th President, I'll want her to try to work with Republicans if there are Republicans who are amenable to persuasion. But I also consider it fortunate that if she's the nominee, she will also be preparing the party for what has to be considered the likelihood that McConnell will continue to be the same brick wall he's been since 2007, and won't have the utilization of magical powers of persuasion that Obama somehow lacked as Plans A through Z.

Now you can get back to complaining about Wiegel.
  #545  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:31 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
For the shittiness that you aided and abetted.

In his case violating the code as put forth in that policy instructing their writers to, even in their own social media accounts, refrain from posting that which "could objectively be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism."

Posting a single line out of its context in a manner which distorted and misrepresented its clear intended meaning within the context
Context! I keep hearing about the context, and how he took that line out of context.

I keep hearing, "I say Wiegel took this line out of context, but I'm not going to come up with the context, so you'll have to take my word for it."

Are you fucking kidding me?? This is the Dope. No, I'm not going to take your word. Evidence, bud, let's see some evidence.

And boy howdy, you're throwing around some pretty serious accusations here, given your repeated failure to provide any evidence. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
  #546  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:34 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Let's see if I got this straight:

Joe Biden spent eight years a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Before that he spent 36 years as a Senator, serving as Chairmen of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction. He's spoken in no uncertain terms of his antipathy for Trump, and of how Trump's damage needs to be undone.

And now you, Banquet Bear, inform us that it is not Biden but Banquet Bear who has the better idea of how to proceed if/when the Trumpist grip on power is overturned. Is that about it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
  #547  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:34 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Let's see if I got this straight:

Joe Biden spent eight years a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Before that he spent 36 years as a Senator, serving as Chairmen of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction. He's spoken in no uncertain terms of his antipathy for Trump, and of how Trump's damage needs to be undone.

And now you, Banquet Bear, inform us that it is not Biden but Banquet Bear who has the better idea of how to proceed if/when the Trumpist grip on power is overturned. Is that about it?

I would be laughing, were it not that this level of pretension and ignorance is rampant in post-literate America, and may present a serious obstacle to social or political recovery.
...it appears the "Biden-stans" have decided to go "full Bernie Bro." That's a real fucking shame.

I'm well aware of Biden's credentials. I stated that a year ago I supported his run for the presidency precisely because of his qualifications and his experience. Did you not see that I wrote that? You even quoted me saying that!

This is a fucking messageboard and the entire point of the Election forums is to debate things related to the election. If we all stopped "expressing our opinions" then this place turns into an echo chamber. Would that make you happy? Is that what you are after? No I don't think Biden is the best candidate to deal with the aftermath of the Trump regime. I think that his experience is to his detriment. I think there are better candidates than him. And I think they are better candidates despite the fact they haven't spent 36 years as a Senator, haven't served as Chairmen of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, that haven't been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction. I could discuss that with you if you like: but it appears that you would rather "chill the debate" by attacking me.
  #548  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:42 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Links to the context have already been given in this thread, included from Howard Dean.
The only link I see, going back, is the one to Howard Dean's tweet. Which again just says Weigel took that remark out of context.

Put up or shut up.
  #549  
Old 06-23-2019, 03:56 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I keep hearing, "I say Wiegel took this line out of context, but I'm not going to come up with the context, so you'll have to take my word for it."
...just for the record: here is Wiegel's tweet in context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiegel
A Friday afternoon hot take for you: In the long run, the Biden quote this week that may do the most damage is “Nothing will fundamentally change,” said to a room of donors.
I've bolded the important context. A "hot take" is "a quickly produced, strongly worded, and often deliberately provocative or sensational opinion or reaction." Wiegel literally tells us that what he has written was "deliberately provocative" and that it was his opinion, not objective reporting. That doesn't mean that what he said was incorrect, misleading, or out of context. And it certainly wasn't unethical by any stretch of the imagination. It was a tweet. When we've got Chuck Todd lying about Ocasio-Cortez to (probably) get himself an interview with the President and Maggie Haberman under credible suspicion of "access journalism" there is plenty to debate in regards to "ethics in political journalism." But Wiegel's tweet isn't one of them.
  #550  
Old 06-23-2019, 04:37 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
Context!

Fuller quote.
Quote:
“By the way, you know, remember I got in trouble with some of the people on my team, on the Democratic side, because I said, ‘You know what I’ve found is rich people are just as patriotic as poor people.’ Not a joke. I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money.”

The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change. Because when we have income inequality as large as we have in the United States today, it brews and ferments political discord and basic revolution. Not a joke. Not a joke. I’m not (inaudible) revolution. But not a joke. It allows demagogues to step in and say the reason where we are is because of the other, the other.” You’re not the other. I need you very badly. I hope if I win this nomination, I won’t let you down. I promise you. I have a bad reputation, I always say what I mean. The problem is I sometimes say all that I mean.
There's really no disagreement that he was saying that income inequality as large as we have it is a real and serious problem that he intends to address by taxing them more but that given how much they have it won't really impact them and their lifestyles in any fundamental way.

It is a clear misrepresentation to say that he was promising there will be no changes at all.

You have to be fucking kidding me if you do not see that as a horrific misrepresentation.


As the Vox article that I harvested pointed out, there really is not that much actual difference between that statement and Warren pointing out that her wealth tax, "two cents on every dollar above a $50 million-plus fortune" isn't going to be anything that any of them cannot easily afford. They'll still be very rich.

The difference is tone. He approaches the players with a presumption of good will that he believes facilitates working together to a common good, trying to get all on board. He resists othering and demonization. He does not sign onto a model that says the wealthy are on one side and the rest of us on the other; he takes what is a radical position in today's environment that we are on the same side of the common good. And he implies that their alternative to working with him on this is being portrayed by others as the enemy who must be destroyed.


Now I get that those who find "revolution" as the operative mindset do not find that approach appealing. He will not be those voters' first choice. But these are not gaffe on his part. IT IS HIS BRAND MESSAGE. He is less about beating down others, be they the very wealthy or Republicans, than he is about selling them. He would alway choose to play this "good cop" in any good cop bad cop arrangement. And he knows he doesn't need to sell them all, just enough of them to get the job done.

In terms of actual policy it's really the same basic things among most everyone running, all with some crazy dreaming included. All in the direction of addressing income and wealth inequality, all for addressing climate change more vigorously, all for better execution of universal healthcare coverage, all for addressing issues of social justice and rights ... all likely to have what gets through Congress (even with a Democratic majority in both House and Senate) as the rate limiter, not their ambition of how far to take it.

So the actual laundry detergent in the boxes are not all that different while the packaging and marketing are the thing. He is selling a box that says "Let's at least try to move away from hyperpolarization, demonization, and othering." It might not sell well to Democratic voters and it might.

It clearly is not the packaging you prefer.

Last edited by DSeid; 06-23-2019 at 04:41 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017