Update: Mueller to testify before House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on July 24

[Jason]

 

[Jason]

 

[osxmatt]

8 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

Now that’s high quality.

[SaysWho?]

5 hours ago, Jason said:

 

 

 

[atom631]

18 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

This BS is what will empower Trump to win in 2020. Calling it now.

This is exactly what I've been saying in this thread. He will not let this go through the 2020 election. Hes going to use it as a weapon...and as I said, hes kinda right. even though @SaysWho? wants to argue that I have no idea what Im talking about just bc I cant link an exact article that specifically backs my very generalized point in today's 24hr news cycle where last weeks news is now 10 pages deep. After 2 years of watching/reading the news on this, it seemed this was a sure thing (even though I had my doubts anything would come of it). 

 

Of course we will see if/when the full report ever gets released with trump redacting everything that could implicate him (what a joke).

 

Question - if Trump redacts a ton of shit before its released, can the House subpoena Mueller to testify before congress to provide info on what was redacted? 

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, atom631 said:

This is exactly what I've been saying in this thread. He will not let this go through the 2020 election. Hes going to use it as a weapon...and as I said, hes kinda right. even though @SaysWho? wants to argue that I have no idea what Im talking about just bc I cant link an exact article that specifically backs my very generalized point in today's 24hr news cycle where last weeks news is now 10 pages deep. After 2 years of watching/reading the news on this, it seemed this was a sure thing (even though I had my doubts anything would come of it). 

 

Of course we will see if/when the full report ever gets released with trump redacting everything that could implicate him (what a joke).

 

Question - if Trump redacts a ton of shit before its released, can the House subpoena Mueller to testify before congress to provide info on what was redacted? 

 

Yeah, usually when you make a claim, you don't hand out google links and expect people to do the work for you. You don't know what you're talking about because you're basically saying the news shouldn't have reported on a special counsel investigation involving foreign interference and the potential for collusion within the highest levels of government. You've argued that we shouldn't quote congresspeople's takes on the investigation, and even though many around the president were indicted, and his associates like Roger Stone are accused of contacts with Russia, and his lawyer is going to serve a prison sentence, that any reporting on this shouldn't have happened.

 

That is insane.

 

That's the only conclusion I can make from your posts because you don't seem to actually understand what the investigation is (Trump doesn't have to collude to be compromised), and you don't understand what conservatives mean when they talk about the media. Their arguments have been that hard news is biased; the only thing you were able to do was link to editorials or Rachel Maddow. That's not "MSM." Trump isn't "kinda right;" he's just a wimp when it comes to the news.

[atom631]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Yeah, usually when you make a claim, you don't hand out google links and expect people to do the work for you. You don't know what you're talking about because you're basically saying the news shouldn't have reported on a special counsel investigation involving foreign interference and the potential for collusion within the highest levels of government. You've argued that we shouldn't quote congresspeople's takes on the investigation, and even though many around the president were indicted, and his associates like Roger Stone are accused of contacts with Russia, and his lawyer is going to serve a prison sentence, that any reporting on this shouldn't have happened.

 

That is insane.

 

That's the only conclusion I can make from your posts because you don't seem to actually understand what the investigation is (Trump doesn't have to collude to be compromised), and you don't understand what conservatives mean when they talk about the media. Their arguments have been that hard news is biased; the only thing you were able to do was link to editorials or Rachel Maddow. That's not "MSM." Trump isn't "kinda right;" he's just a wimp when it comes to the news.

 

that is not at all what Im arguing. Im arguing that the way the media framed their reports and articles made it seem like it was a sure thing. That Mueller was the 2nd coming of Christ that was going to save the country from nazi fascism (feel like i need a "/s" so you know im exaggerating).

 

I understand the investigation quite clearly. I also get he doesn't have to collude to be compromised. It was framed that because he was compromised, he colluded. 

 

And I completely disagree with your perception of what conservatives classify as MSM. MSNBC, CNN, NBC, NPR, CBS, etc - and all its programming IS the "fakenews liberal MSM". There are so many conservatives that dont know Maddow is just a pundit and not an actual new reporter. Hell, they dont realize that Hannity is the same thing! They take his word as gospel..but Maddow is fake and biased. Theres a reason why these talking heads have the highest ratings on either side. This is where a lot of people from both sides go to confirm their bias.  And before you ask me to cite anything....my only anecdotal evidence I have of this is that I live on Long Island. A very very deep-red area of NY overflowing with Trump supporters.

 

 

[SaysWho?]

13 minutes ago, atom631 said:

 

that is not at all what Im arguing. Im arguing that the way the media framed their reports and articles made it seem like it was a sure thing. That Mueller was the 2nd coming of Christ that was going to save the country from nazi fascism (feel like i need a "/s" so you know im exaggerating).

 

I understand the investigation quite clearly. I also get he doesn't have to collude to be compromised. It was framed that because he was compromised, he colluded. 

 

And I completely disagree with your perception of what conservatives classify as MSM. MSNBC, CNN, NBC, NPR, CBS, etc - and all its programming IS the "fakenews liberal MSM". There are so many conservatives that dont know Maddow is just a pundit and not an actual new reporter. Hell, they dont realize that Hannity is the same thing! They take his word as gospel..but Maddow is fake and biased. Theres a reason why these talking heads have the highest ratings on either side. This is where a lot of people from both sides go to confirm their bias.  And before you ask me to cite anything....my only anecdotal evidence I have of this is that I live on Long Island. A very very deep-red area of NY overflowing with Trump supporters.

 

 

 

Again, receipts. Don't just make things up; you're accusing every media organization and the only thing you could pull was a few editorials. Where did CBS Evening News pump up Mueller as someone who would get rid of Trump and save us from a presidential nightmare? Because so far, all I'm seeing is you arguing that the media shouldn't have even covered it. Don't tell me you understand the investigation quite clearly; show me. You clearly did not know the difference between compromised and colluded; you're shifting goal posts to make it seem like you thought that.

 

It's not about disagreeing; it's what it is. That's why Fox News defends itself by saying, "Our news isn't biased because Fox & Friends and our opinion hosts aren't news." Have you ever actually argued with a conservative before? To my face, one of my first news directors said, "No, Glenn Beck isn't what I'm talking about. Mainstream media is the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. etc." The accusation is the hard news is biased when it's supposed to be neutral. That they dislike Maddow doesn't mean they think she's a hard news reporter.

 

Also, I have roots in NYC and Long Island. Long Island isn't "very very deep-red." It's redder than what's west of it, but 51-44 is kinda red, and that's only Suffolk County, not Nassau. Suffolk voted for Obama both times as well, which is hardly deep red. I live in a redder area than you and a redder state than you and a redder region of the country than you.

 

EDIT: I know it seems I'm giving you a hard time, but as someone who is in news and has his own problems with news reporting, what you're saying does not match up with what happened. It's a simplistic view that Republicans hold that you're eating up.

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Quote

And  I completely disagree with your perception of what conservatives classify as MSM. MSNBC, CNN, NBC, NPR, CBS, etc - and all its programming IS the "fakenews liberal MSM". There are so many conservatives that dont know Maddow is just a pundit and not an actual new reporter. Hell, they  dont realize that Hannity is the same thing! They take his word  as go spel..but Mad dow  is fake and biased. 

This is correct.

[SaysWho?]

7 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

This is correct.

 

It's really not.

 

I was shouted down years ago on this board about this very thing. "NYT is calling it the 'so-called' surge. That's what I mean; I don't care about Rush Limbaugh."

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

5 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

It's really not.

 

I was shouted down years ago on this board about this very thing. "NYT is calling it the 'so-called' surge. That's what I mean; I don't care about Rush Limbaugh."

To conservatives if you’re not on the trump train cheerleader bandwagon, you’re the liberal media. Liberal media, msm, Main Street media, fake news media, all one in the same to these people. Doesn’t matter if it’s the editorial board or the front page coverage, if you’re not “with them” you’re “against them.” The echo chamber has no space for dissonance or questions. 

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

To conservatives if you’re not on the trump train cheerleader bandwagon, you’re the liberal media. Liberal media, msm, Main Street media, fake news media, all one in the same to these people. Doesn’t matter if it’s the editorial board or the front page coverage, if you’re not “with them” you’re “against them.” The echo chamber has no space for dissonance or questions. 

 

That's different than what conservatives have been campaigning on for decades in regards to media bias. That's why Dan Rather gets fired for one thing. That's an expectation even they have for hard news hosts, which is why they dismiss guys like Limbaugh as conservative shock jocks, not reporters.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

10 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

That's different than what conservatives have been campaigning on for decades in regards to media bias. That's why Dan Rather gets fired for one thing. That's an expectation even they have for hard news hosts, which is why they dismiss guys like Limbaugh as conservative shock jocks, not reporters.

Trump is the same thing here. While he is a product and inevitable result of 40 years of conservative messaging, he is the current state of the conservative movement, despite being something they’d never run before. The same for how the msm is perceived by the right, and the 2016 election solidified it. Rightfully so, because he was and is such a garbage person/candidate/president, the media turned on trump and he was happy to reciprocate. Instead of taking the path of examining the candidate as the problem, the media itself became the problem in their eyes. This media was always “known” to be liberally biased after all, and their perceived inability to see how terrible Clinton was (in the eyes of the right) fed more fuel to this fire. 

[SaysWho?]

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Trump is the same thing here. While he is a product and inevitable result of 40 years of conservative messaging, he is the current state of the conservative movement, despite being something they’d never run before. The same for how the msm is perceived by the right, and the 2016 election solidified it. Rightfully so, because he was and is such a garbage person/candidate/president, the media turned on trump and he was happy to reciprocate. Instead of taking the path of examining the candidate as the problem, the media itself became the problem in their eyes. This media was always “known” to be liberally biased after all, and their perceived inability to see how terrible Clinton was (in the eyes of the right) fed more fuel to this fire. 

 

 

What I'm saying is the liberal hosts are always opposed to most Republican policy. The hard news people like Brian Williams will get fired on a dime for one made up story. There's an expectation that even your morning news shouldn't inject their opinions into the stories. The "fake news" typically involves hard news stories uncovered by papers like the New York Times or Washington Post. They talked to sources, Trump says the sources are made up and the story didn't happen, ergo "fake news." He's not calling an MSNBC host's reaction to the news fake. For decades, even in Watergate when Nixon's administration said the Washington Post was making stuff up about the scandal (lol), they were talking about an editorial slant in the hard news. Listen also to, say, Bill O'Reilly's defense of Fox News when he was a host, that in a newspaper you get your news and then there's the editorial section (Fox News opinion hosts in the evening). Fox News made that very case in defense of themselves.

 

"MSM" was a term thrown around in 2004 quite a bit, notably in regards to the story Dan Rather shared about George W Bush's military service. The story wasn't real, bad information, and on nightly news of all places where everything should be correct. The conservatives who used to post here would make the same point over and over again. Engel, BostonAOD, it was always the same argument.

 

The news media has many issues, one of which was actually overdoing Hillary's emails without even understanding what any of it meant and the fear of being called bias, therefore amplifying bad conservative arguments.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

but as someone who is in news

 

You're a weatherman. 

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

That is insane.

 

THAT IS SPAAAARTAAAA

 

...  

[SaysWho?]

10 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

You're a weatherman. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

I've won three journalism awards and do meteorology/reporting. That's why my raise was really good.

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I've won three journalism awards and do meteorology/reporting. That's why my raise was really good.

 

I was just trolling boo. 

[SaysWho?]

Just now, Jason said:

 

I was just trolling boo. 

 

I know; I clicked through all the spoilers.  

 

But I also don't think people realize that my interests cover the whole field. I have a lot to contribute to media talk.  

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

37 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

 

What I'm saying is the liberal hosts are always opposed to most Republican policy. The hard news people like Brian Williams will get fired on a dime for one made up story. There's an expectation that even your morning news shouldn't inject their opinions into the stories. The "fake news" typically involves hard news stories uncovered by papers like the New York Times or Washington Post. They talked to sources, Trump says the sources are made up and the story didn't happen, ergo "fake news." He's not calling an MSNBC host's reaction to the news fake. For decades, even in Watergate when Nixon's administration said the Washington Post was making stuff up about the scandal (lol), they were talking about an editorial slant in the hard news. Listen also to, say, Bill O'Reilly's defense of Fox News when he was a host, that in a newspaper you get your news and then there's the editorial section (Fox News opinion hosts in the evening). Fox News made that very case in defense of themselves.

 

"MSM" was a term thrown around in 2004 quite a bit, notably in regards to the story Dan Rather shared about George W Bush's military service. The story wasn't real, bad information, and on nightly news of all places where everything should be correct. The conservatives who used to post here would make the same point over and over again. Engel, BostonAOD, it was always the same argument.

 

The news media has many issues, one of which was actually overdoing Hillary's emails without even understanding what any of it meant and the fear of being called bias, therefore amplifying bad conservative arguments.

The problem here is you're taking an objective analysis, and the people I'm talking about act in bad faith from the comfort of their media safe spaces. 

[Jason]

 

[SaysWho?]

6 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The problem here is you're taking an objective analysis, and the people I'm talking about act in bad faith from the comfort of their media safe spaces. 

 

It's my objective analysis of the people who are crying media bias.  

 

I'm just saying: this is a discussion I've had with these people for years and years. This conversation ITT revolves around the entire media supposedly creating a false narrative instead of reporting. If the argument is just that some liberals on TV thought Trump was guilty, then it doesn't really matter and it's nothing new or special.

[Chairslinger]

Just now, Jason said:

 

 

 

This is exactly why recusal is a thing.

 

Instead of curling up in a defensive ball, the media should be saying this is why you don't attack the special counsel for two years, repeatedly complain your AG isn't defending you, hire an unqualified political hack for AG, and then install someone as AG who auditioned for the job by telling you it was impossible for the president to obstruct justice.

 

When you do that, and so much more, and the results end up being positive for you....big surprise that people are rightfully skeptical about it.

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

This is exactly why recusal is a thing.

 

Instead of curling up in a defensive ball, the media should be saying this is why you don't attack the special counsel for two years, repeatedly complain your AG isn't defending you, hire an unqualified political hack for AG, and then install someone as AG who auditioned for the job by telling you it was impossible for the president to obstruct justice.

 

When you do that, and so much more, and the results end up being positive for you....big surprise that people are rightfully skeptical about it.

 

Trump has made it very clear since he first started railing in Sessions for recusing himself that he wants an AG who'll act as his personal attorney. Combine this cleanup of the Mueller investigation with the "Trump tweets in official capacity, but blocking users is a personal matter, DOJ argues in court" and it's pretty clear he's found what he wanted in Barr.

[Guest]

I want to point out real quick that @SaysWho? demanded receipts from @atom631, then defended his claims of what conservatives mean when they refer to the MSM by quoting what his news director told him.

 

Carry on.

[Jason]

 

[PaladinSolo]

 

[SaysWho?]

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I want to point out real quick that @SaysWho? demanded receipts from @atom631, then defended his claims of what conservatives mean when they refer to the MSM by quoting what his news director told him.

 

Carry on.

 

Yeah, the whole argument revolved around my old news director. 

 

Side note: what's up with people mentioning users in a thread they already post in? 

[PaladinSolo]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I've won three journalism awards and do meteorology/reporting. That's why my raise was really good.

Why do local meteorologists suck balls?  My local guys always say its going to be colder than it is, or predict more snow than whats going to happen to the point where i ignore them completely and rely on the weather channel app.

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Yeah, the whole argument revolved around my old news director. 

 

Side note: what's up with people mentioning users in a thread they already post in? 

 

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Why do local meteorologists suck balls?  My local guys always say its going to be colder than it is, or predict more snow than whats going to happen to the point where i ignore them completely and rely on the weather channel app.

 

Depends which ones. I'm amazing.

 

James Spann is really good at severe weather reporting.

 

Weather channel app is basically one model. Meteorologists are looking at all models and making adjustments. What's your market and are you close to the news station or in a distant county?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Yeah, the whole argument revolved around my old news director. 

 

Everything else was just you stating your perception of things...kind of like the person you were chastising  

[PaladinSolo]

5 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Depends which ones. I'm amazing.

 

James Spann is really good at severe weather reporting.

 

Weather channel app is basically one model. Meteorologists are looking at all models and making adjustments. What's your market and are you close to the news station or in a distant county?

Upstate NY, Binghamton, and i'm maybe 15 miles from the station, I know why they're binghamton temps are fucked, because they use the airport, which is further north and elevated, but no reason to give predictions like last week showing a map of everyone getting 4-7 then getting nothing just like the weather app said, lol.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, sblfilms said:

 

Everything else was just you stating your perception of things...kind of like the person you were chastising  

 

Not really.