Joe Biden's in

Politics & Elections
521

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.

522

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

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.

524

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

The WaPo, unsurprisingly, has a policy concerning its reporters’ social media use:

Just sayin’.

526

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

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

528

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!

529

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.

530

For what, precisely?

531

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.

532

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

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

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.

  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”

  5. It is not a crime to be rich

  6. But the rich must pay their fair share

  7. You might disagree with the rate of tax

  8. But increasing your taxes won’t fundamentally change your standard of living

535

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

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

…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

…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

As usual, you fall into the “intentionally ignore” rather than “unable to understand” category.

540

…“as usual?” Can you be a bit more specific about what it is I “usually do?”

And what have I “intentionally ignored?”