Republicans: candidate who assaulted reporter is fine with us!

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

So tell me, begbert2 (and anyone else interested in this aspect of the argument): yes or no. Do you acknowledge that, regardless of how you personally feel about politicians, reporters, this case of criminal assault, or how evil the GOP is, a first offense misdemeanor assault with no serious physical injury would be unlikely in the extreme to be sentenced to actual jail time? And do you acknowledge that if the outcome of THIS criminal case is also no jail time, that’s consistent with other such cases involving similar injuries and a lack of prior criminal history?

I will agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that this guy will serve no jail time. I would be surprised in fact, if charges even stick enough to make him pay a fine.

I disagree with the rest of your statement. For instance, if it were the reporter that had physically assaulted the congressman, do you not think he would be facing a harsher punishment?

@Bricker

So what’s your response? You argue (apparently) that a single act of physical violence is sufficient for disqualification, and that all right-thinking people should agree. I point out lots of people that don’t agree (when the perpetrator is their favored side).

A single act of physical violence, in the context of attacking a reporter because you don’t like the questions he is asking, certainly would not disqualify them, as obviously, he won, in fact, in the minds of many of his supporters, that just makes him more qualified for office. But it should make rational people question their judgement.

You ask if the roles were reversed, if it were a democrat who committed the assault, well, I certainly would not vote for a person that shows that level of lack of restraint to represent me in anything important.

@Bricker

For the purposes of this discussion, I accept this as true.

But that does not describe “thrown off” insurance. That language is not correct. And even if it’s defensible as you’ve done (“…can very well be said to have been removed from insurance…”) it’s supportive of my point that someone who chooses that phrasing to describe the situation is not doing so as a neutral observer of facts. That’s the choice made by a narrator who believes that the ACA’s model is a comparatively good thing when contrasted with the AHCA and seeks to persuade the reader of this belief.

Now, if the articles that followed then continued in that rhetoric, you would have a point. But, honestly, headlines are always made for being attention grabbing. It’s not a partisan slant, it’s an interesting slant.

I will agree with you that news has become more about entertainment than about informing people in depth about the issues, and that is not optimal, but I blame that more on our culture’s short attention span, than on the response to that fact by our media.

What to do about it? Well, I don’t get my news from the headlines. I used to listen to NPR until my car radio died. I actually get the majority of my news from here, these days, so I get any headline along with analysis and opinion by people of differing analysing skills on both sides of the aisle.

How to get the majority of the public to read past the headline to the meat of an article? I don’t have an answer for that.

@John_Mace

I don’t know why people keep saying this. As I noted earlier in the thread, the governor is a Democrat and one of the Senators is, too. Democrats obviously can win in state-wide elections even if presidential elections tilt towards Republicans.

Local politics is just that, local. A democrat in Montana is going to be to the right on most issues compared to a Republican in New York. For instance, the banjo playing hippie that lost the election is also a shotgun wielding gun nut, his campaign commercial would have cost him all his democratic votes in any “blue state”.

[Bricker]

@k9bfriender

I will agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that this guy will serve no jail time. I would be surprised in fact, if charges even stick enough to make him pay a fine.

I disagree with the rest of your statement. For instance, if it were the reporter that had physically assaulted the congressman, do you not think he would be facing a harsher punishment?

I think you’re now asking a slightly different question:

(1) Not that it’s going to happen, because politicians are above the law, but what would happen in the theoretical case that he was prosecuted and got jail time?

My response to THIS claim notes that “prosecuted and got jail time” is an extraordinary outcome for any first-time offender. Even if the roles were reversed, and the reporter body-slammed the candidate, assuming the reporter had no prior criminal history, “prosecuted and got jail time” would be a very very very unlikely outcome.

Do you understand? Do you agree?

Now, the reformulation you offer:

(2) If the roles were reversed, would the reporter be facing a harsher punishment?

It’s possible, and I might even go so far as to say likely. But it’s by no means “extraordinary” or “very very very unlikely” if that didn’t happen. In other words, it’s a much more balanced event, probability-wise. A number of other factors would come into play, including how the victim acted. A victim that magnanimously accepted the apology of his assailant would be relevant in the sentencing, as would a victim that demanded a stringent prosecution and justice.

So the key element I’m focusing on is: no jail time. Even a victim that demanded his pound of flesh, so to speak, would not get an assailant with jail time, assuming misdemeanor assault and no jail time, no matter, change places and handy dandy, which was the justice and which the thief.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

I think Bricker has confirmed the thread title for us:

**Republicans: candidate who assaulted reporter is fine with us! **

[D_Anconia]

@k9bfriender

I actually get the majority of my news from here, these days, so I get any headline along with analysis and opinion by people of differing analysing skills on both sides of the aisle.

That’s the second time in the last day or so that someone expressed that sentiment. The SDMB is NOT a news site.

It’s opinion, of which the vast, vast majority is leftie.

Do you know the difference between opinion and fact?

[Bricker]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I think Bricker has confirmed the thread title for us:

**Republicans: candidate who assaulted reporter is fine with us! **

Except:

@Bricker

It was directly contradicted by what I said. I explicitly said that this wasn’t OK, but was merely preferable to the alternative. I used the analogy of changing a tire in freezing rain. So you knew I wasn’t saying “This is OK,” and you knew it did not follow from my argument.

So again, why did you say it? You knew it wasn’t a fair summary of my argument. Everyone reading this exchange knows that. Why did you use it?

Didn’t say “Fine with me,” either.

[running_coach]

@D_Anconia

That’s the second time in the last day or so that someone expressed that sentiment. The SDMB is NOT a news site.

It’s opinion, of which the vast, vast majority is leftie.

Do you know the difference between opinion and fact?

If someone links to a news story, that’s opinion?

[jsc1953]

My apologies for paraphrasing a third-party quote, but: on NewsHour last night, Mark Shields quoted somebody whose name I missed, saying: when you check someone’s party affiliation before deciding whether or not you agree with them…that’s what’s wrong with this country. And if you check party affiliation before deciding whether or not assault is justified, you’re dragging this country straight into the dumper.

[Bricker]

@jsc1953

My apologies for paraphrasing a third-party quote, but: on NewsHour last night, Mark Shields quoted somebody whose name I missed, saying: when you check someone’s party affiliation before deciding whether or not you agree with them…that’s what’s wrong with this country. And if you check party affiliation before deciding whether or not assault is justified, you’re dragging this country straight into the dumper.

Obviously, I agree.

[k9bfriender]

@John_Mace

I don’t buy Bricker’s line about the MSM being overly mean to Trump. But you guys are still not getting it. “Talk radio” is not news. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are political advocates, not objective journalists. Neither is trying to be the NYT.

If people are listening to it, and treating what they hear as the reality that they react to, it’s news. You and I may disagree with that assessment, but the listeners certainly do not.

@D_Anconia

That’s the second time in the last day or so that someone expressed that sentiment. The SDMB is NOT a news site.

It’s opinion, of which the vast, vast majority is leftie.

People post news article here, right? If I read those articles, is that any different than if I had read the article in my daily newspaper, or heard it on the radio?

If so, how so?

The point I was making was that not only is there a news article to read, but that it comes along with quite a bit of opinion and analysis, some of which is useful, some of which isn’t.

Do you know the difference between opinion and fact?

Yep, and if you had read my post before you responded to it, you would have said that I get the news, along with opinion. So, there is no reason for you to ask that question, unless you utterly failed at comprehending my post.

But, you do that quite a bit, for instance, your thing with Pelosi, where only a complete fucking moron would think that she was upset that trump’s visit was not in alphabetical order, not that she was making a snide remark about his priorities.

So, is it actual inability to comprehend what people are saying in such a way that makes you respond to perfectly common sentiments and idioms like a buffoonish asshole loser, or is it your partisanship that makes you think that you score some sort of points when you act that way?

[Procrustus]

@Bricker

It’s an effort to expose the actual argument being offered: not that “criminal actions are bad,” but rather “criminal actions are much worse when done by people who we politically oppose.”

You are the new poster boy for this outlook. Or the converse actually. One free assault is fine by people we politically support. Two assaults? Oh god no, that would be terrible. Just one. One is okay.

[BigT]

@Bricker

Jesus, Procrustus, why can’t you admit that I have already said it’s a bad thing, but that a single physical assault with no serious injury is not bad ENOUGH to make me per se withdraw my support?

Because it allows you to claim you think it is wrong, but at the same time continue to do exactly the same action you would if you thought it was right.

And because you’ve repeatedly said that liberals are required to disavow violent people. Which means you have to disavow this man. Instead, you’re making up excuses for why you can still support him.

You love to constantly argue that liberals don’t actually believe what they say they believe. You did it in this very thread, saying we mean that it’s wrong if it’s on one side but not the other. Personally, I think it’s projection on your part.

In short, we don’t trust you any more than you trust us.

[Dale_Sams]

@D_Anconia

That’s the second time in the last day or so that someone expressed that sentiment. The SDMB is NOT a news site.

It’s opinion, of which the vast, vast majority is leftie.

Do you know the difference between opinion and fact?

I thought it’s mandate was ‘fighting ignorance’.

[raventhief]

@Bricker

This is an attempt to parse the words “pro-life,” in a way different than you know I was using them.

I’m also opposed to the death penalty, and I call that pro-life, but would you say that position is not so much pro-life as pro-murderer, since after all only convicted murderers are subject to the death penalty?

Pro- life rarely refers, in my experience, to the death penalty. I know many people who consider themselves prolife and pro death penalty. Are you using the phrase in a non standard way, or are they?

[Bricker]

@BigT

Because it allows you to claim you think it is wrong, but at the same time continue to do exactly the same action you would if you thought it was right.

Of course you must know that this is not true. But since you have already announced your support for lying, cheating, stealing, and sexual assault if it keeps your favored political people in charge, I am unsurprised.

In short, we don’t trust you any more than you trust us.

I am pleased to learn that you have intestinal parasites and unsurprised to learn they share your ability to reason.

[Bricker]

@raventhief

Pro- life rarely refers, in my experience, to the death penalty. I know many people who consider themselves prolife and pro death penalty. Are you using the phrase in a non standard way, or are they?

I am. Pro-life in political discourse refers to abortion.

[John_Mace]

@k9bfriender

Local politics is just that, local. A democrat in Montana is going to be to the right on most issues compared to a Republican in New York. For instance, the banjo playing hippie that lost the election is also a shotgun wielding gun nut, his campaign commercial would have cost him all his democratic votes in any “blue state”.

So what? Are you saying Montana Democrats are not true Democrats? If not, what are you saying? Of course a Democrat from Montana is likely to be less liberal than one for NYC. News at 11.

@k9bfriender

If people are listening to it, and treating what they hear as the reality that they react to, it’s news. You and I may disagree with that assessment, but the listeners certainly do not.

Already addressed in post 205. We were explicitly talking about the MSM and how Trump has maligned it. Introducing non-MSM changes the discussion to something else.

[drad_dog]

@Bricker

I am. Pro-life in political discourse refers to abortion.

I thought All Lives Mattered.

[D_Anconia]

@k9bfriender

People post news article here, right?

Herein lies the rub. People often post “news articles” that are clearly labeled “opinion” or “commentary”, and they (the posters) don’t seem to know the difference between commentary and fact.

In fact, (heh) there is at least one poster who argued in another thread that opinion IS fact.

:dubious:

[k9bfriender]

@John_Mace

So what? Are you saying Montana Democrats are not true Democrats? If not, what are you saying? Of course a Democrat from Montana is likely to be less liberal than one for NYC. News at 11.

You didn’t read me correctly, I said that a Democrat from Montana would be to the right of a Republican from NY.

In other words, yes, democrats can win seats in these sorts of states, but only if they are what many on the left would consider to be not “true democrats”.

These are the democrats that, while they may caucus with the dems, don’t actually vote with the dems on many issues. They are not a reliable support for the party’s agendas. In many ways, they hurt the party, because in 2009, in theory, there were a majority of democrats in the house and senate, filibuster proof even, but the democrats from red states did not have the same goals, and so did not work with the rest of them on things like healthcare overhauls, leaving them very watered down from what the democratic party actually wanted.

Already addressed in post 205. We were explicitly talking about the MSM and how Trump has maligned it. Introducing non-MSM changes the discussion to something else.

You may have addressed it, but that doesn’t mean that you ended the discussion about it. In fact, we are specifically talking about a republican candidate who body slammed a reporter, and was not punished for it electorally, and any discussions about media are a bit of a tangent.

The idea that the MSM is unreliable because sometimes it has sensational headlines is being compared to the right wing media, which has not only sensational, but deliberately misleading and often outright false headlines. The comparison continues in the meat of the articles, where the MSM usually reverts to more neutral reporting in the article, while the meat of the article on breitbart or in a limbaugh segment is even more disingenuous.

There are a few reasons to bring up right wing “news” when talking about MSM, especially if the MSM is being accused of liberal bias.

The first is simply because there are no airlocks in our culture. If the right wing “news” sphere gets more sensational and misleading, that has an effect on the rest of the media. It is not an effect that I like, and I wold stop if I could, but it is an effect that is pretty much inevitable, given that the media is not in business to report the news, but to make money off of people reading the news.

Second, well, what are we comparing the bias to? It is impossible to completely eliminate bias, bias is shown just in what stories get reported, even before you get to how the stories are reported. So pointing out bias in the media is like pointing out clouds on a rainy day. The question is not whether it exists, but whether it makes a difference in political discourse, and if it does, how much damage that does to public perceptions. In this, I will strongly state my opinion that the right wing “news” sources are causing a much greater distorted picture of reality, while the MSM simply chooses which windows out of which to let you gaze, with maybe just a bit of tint in the glass, and possibly a sensational title.

Finally, many people make choices based on what they hear on right wing media. They do not check multiple sources, or look for alternatives to their views, the just soak it right up as if it were the unvarnished truth. Then they go vote. And they vote for the people they were informed by the right wing media will represent their interests and improve their lives, not for the people who actually will.

If I were a nominal republican, and I heard the body slamming story from right wing news, I would have voted for him with no qualms, as the right wing news made it sound like the reporter assualt him, not the other way around. These lies are far worse than sensational headlines, do far more damage to our country and the people in it, and in a large way contribute to the MSM heading down a path towards less neutral reporting, as they feel they have to respond to the attacks from the right.

[running_coach]

@D_Anconia

Herein lies the rub. People often post “news articles” that are clearly labeled “opinion” or “commentary”, and they (the posters) don’t seem to know the difference between commentary and fact.

In fact, (heh) there is at least one poster who argued in another thread that opinion IS fact.

:dubious:

Cite?