|
|
Post by jdd2 on Sept 27, 2019 21:00:57 GMT -5
I was old enough to be aware that Watergate was going on, and had a basic idea of what it was about. It was all over the news, and engrained into conversations my parents had together or had with their friends, all left to the interpretation of a ten year old. One thing I recall is the people who absolutely couldn't stand Nixon and the people who adored him. I'm sure there are more parallels than that. I was a fully grown guy covering Watergate for Congressional Quarterly, a respected non-partisan journal with news features that were sent out over AP. I recall reporting on the twists and turns of that story with a certain amount of detachment. I guess I had the idea that things would work out in the end. Wrongdoing, if it existed, would be exposed. Americans would make the right decisions. And the country would emerge battered but still kicking. Kind of like most Americans always thought we would win WWII, or so it's been reported. The overall good would prevail. This one feels very different, and not for any reasons involving ideology. Nixon had his quirks, like wandering around the White House at night drinking and staring at presidential portraits, and like making Kissinger join him in prayer sessions, and treating the secretary of state as if he were his personal therapist. Kind of tepid stuff compared to the glimpses we get on a regular basis of Trump's disorganized mind. Nixon had an ideological base. What Trump has is a cult, with Messianic overtones. Big difference. When a delegation of Senate Republicans informed Nixon after the "smoking gun" was discovered that his GOP support had collapsed, Nixon honored that finding by resigning. I'm not sure what Trump - or his supporters - would do. I see lots of bad scenarios. Nice to hear about it from someone who had skin in the game. |
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Sept 27, 2019 22:41:52 GMT -5
"The Swamp has grown and rotted around you..."
Maybe what trump meant when he said drain the swamp was to go kamikaze with everyone on board?
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 28, 2019 6:44:40 GMT -5
/fussy English teacher mode on/ When someone says, "X implies," it is indeed an inference, and it is understood that the speaker is seeing an implication. Text/statement implies, and the reader/hearer infers--but there's nothing wrong with saying, "This document implies X" or "The implication is X." Someone else can draw different implications--can make different inferences. An inference--seeing an implication--is a conclusion, the result of analysis of what is not explicitly stated. That's why inferences can differ. Nonsense. In the context, Woodruff -- the "objective" journalist is asserting what must be inferred from the transcript. It is the very issue at hand. She is begging the question by asserting that the transcript "implies" what she declares it implies. And the transcript does nothing of the sort. I have read it. It does NOT imply what she says it does. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 28, 2019 8:00:49 GMT -5
"The Swamp has grown and rotted around you..." Maybe what trump meant when he said drain the swamp was to go kamikaze with everyone on board? You're finally getting it. |
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Sept 28, 2019 8:14:16 GMT -5
The Democrats and their press's sense of entitlement to the reins of government has never been more evident in my lifetime. They cannot fathom a safe world in which they are not in charge. After the release of the Starr Report 115 newspapers called for Clinton to resign. 2019? So far, crickets on Trump. Damn liberal media. |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 28, 2019 8:24:26 GMT -5
The Democrats and their press's sense of entitlement to the reins of government has never been more evident in my lifetime. They cannot fathom a safe world in which they are not in charge. After the release of the Starr Report 115 newspapers called for Clinton to resign. 2019? So far, crickets on Trump. Damn liberal media. That's because Clinton was guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 28, 2019 8:49:31 GMT -5
The Democrats and their press's sense of entitlement to the reins of government has never been more evident in my lifetime. They cannot fathom a safe world in which they are not in charge. After the release of the Starr Report 115 newspapers called for Clinton to resign. 2019? So far, crickets on Trump. Damn liberal media. And did he resign? So what? |
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Sept 28, 2019 8:51:57 GMT -5
The CIA is spying on the White House and reporting to Congress and the press. Can you even imagine the thought of the CIA spying on the Obama White House? ...yeah, neither can I. I wouldn't be surprised if the intelligence community keeps tabs on everything a President does. This is the first time they've found one committing treason. |
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Sept 28, 2019 8:57:09 GMT -5
In July, 2018 Trump told us he took Putin’s word that Russia had not meddled in the 2016 election.
Last night we learned that, in 2017, not only did Trump acknowledge Russia meddled in the 2016 election, he told the Russians in the Oval Office he wasn’t concerned.
He's still at it, trying to get foreign powers to ratfuck the next election. (Read the damn "transcript" that he released.)
So much for protecting us from "all enemies, foreign and domestic."
The calls are coming from inside the house.
Claiming "fake news" is the last refuge of a dying cult. It's every bit as bad as it looks and probably worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 28, 2019 9:08:39 GMT -5
In July, 2018 Trump told us he took Putin’s word that Russia had not meddled in the 2016 election. Last night we learned that, in 2017, not only did Trump acknowledge Russia meddled in the 2016 election, he told the Russians in the Oval Office he wasn’t concerned. He's still at it, trying to get foreign powers to ratfuck the next election. (Read the damn "transcript" that he released.) So much for protecting us from "all enemies, foreign and domestic." The calls are coming from inside the house. Claiming "fake news" is the last refuge of a dying cult. It's every bit as bad as it looks and probably worse. I did read the damn transcript. And the whistleblower report. And you're still wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Sept 28, 2019 9:31:35 GMT -5
The truth is going to come out. All of it.
The levee is breaking.
Funny thing is, none of the bad stuff that's coming is going to be a surprise to anybody.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 28, 2019 9:46:40 GMT -5
The truth is going to come out. All of it. The levee is breaking. Funny thing is, none of the bad stuff that's coming is going to be a surprise to anybody. Even Bill Maher seems to have figured out he's been duped. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 28, 2019 9:48:10 GMT -5
The CIA is spying on the White House and reporting to Congress and the press. Can you even imagine the thought of the CIA spying on the Obama White House? ...yeah, neither can I. I wouldn't be surprised if the intelligence community keeps tabs on everything a President does.. Charged by whom? How does this work? |
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Sept 28, 2019 10:53:37 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised if the intelligence community keeps tabs on everything a President does.. Charged by whom? How does this work? Fair question. If you have an out of control POTUS saying things to the Russians like "No problem," we mess with others' elections all the time." If you have a POTUS who asks foreign leaders to dig up dirt on his likely opponents in the next election. And you have people surrounding him who act as if his crazy ass corruption is all good. Whose job is it to do something about it? Hypothetically, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 28, 2019 11:11:44 GMT -5
Charged by whom? How does this work? Fair question. If you have an out of control POTUS saying things to the Russians like "No problem," we mess with others' elections all the time." If you have a POTUS who asks foreign leaders to dig up dirt on his likely opponents in the next election. And you have people surrounding him who act as if his crazy ass corruption is all good. Whose job is it to do something about it? Hypothetically, of course. Since you can't prove any of that horseshit, I guess it comes down to trying to beat him at the ballot box. Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 28, 2019 11:29:49 GMT -5
Nonsense. In the context, Woodruff -- the "objective" journalist is asserting what must be inferred from the transcript. It is the very issue at hand. She is begging the question by asserting that the transcript "implies" what she declares it implies. And the transcript does nothing of the sort. I have read it. It does NOT imply what she says it does. Nope, not nonsense. Standard usage. An implication is seen by the one who draws the inference. Implications are always matters of interpretation, drawings-out of matters not explicit in the text. Different readers can (and do) see different implications. The imply/infer divide that English teachers fuss over usually has to do with constructions such as "I imply from this" when what's meant is "I infer from this." The constructions "This document implies" and "The implication is" are perfectly acceptable as statements equivalent to "From this document I infer." Think of it as a matter of point of view: the document implies, the reader infers--that is, the reader asserts an implication. Logically, the implication is a proposition based on an interpretation of unstated or implicit material in the source document/evidence set. You can keep arguing with me, but I did this for a living for a long time and still practice the craft. (I don't question your expertise re: pottery or running.) Your interpretation of the transcript differs from Woodruff's--you disagree with the inference she draws from it, the implication she sees. "Implication" is not a metaphysical category--it's a species of interpretation and thus always inside the head of the interpreter. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 28, 2019 11:37:53 GMT -5
Nonsense. In the context, Woodruff -- the "objective" journalist is asserting what must be inferred from the transcript. It is the very issue at hand. She is begging the question by asserting that the transcript "implies" what she declares it implies. And the transcript does nothing of the sort. I have read it. It does NOT imply what she says it does. Nope, not nonsense. Standard usage. An implication is seen by the one who draws the inference. Implications are always matters of interpretation, drawings-out of matters not explicit in the text. Different readers can (and do) see different implications. The imply/infer divide that English teachers fuss over usually has to do with constructions such as "I imply from this" when what's meant is "I infer from this." The constructions "This document implies" and "The implication is" are perfectly acceptable as statements equivalent to "From this document I infer." Think of it as a matter of point of view: the document implies, the reader infers--that is, the reader asserts an implication. Logically, the implication is a proposition based on an interpretation of unstated or implicit material in the source document/evidence set. You can keep arguing with me, but I did this for a living for a long time and still practice the craft. (I don't question your expertise re: pottery or running.) Your interpretation of the transcript differs from Woodruff's--you disagree with the inference she draws from it, the implication she sees. "Implication" is not a metaphysical category--it's a species of interpretation and thus always inside the head of the interpreter. So after all that nonsense, the rules of the English language don't prove she's full of shit, but they don't deny that she could very well be full of shit. That's helpful. I think. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 28, 2019 11:38:32 GMT -5
Context. That was the very issue being discussed. Woodruff insisted by her use of language that there was only one way a person could read the transcript. I read it. I don't agree. You read it. You agree with Woodruff's interpretation, but it doesn't make you and Woodruff correct. You and she are begging the very question. It isn't grammar. I don't care if you are correct that "imply/infer" CAN be taken as you say. That does NOT reflect the context of Woodruff's statement. She was arguing that very point with Conway.
The transcript does NOT imply what Woodruff insisted that it does. I know it doesn't because I read it and did not come to the same conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 28, 2019 11:50:38 GMT -5
Wait. I get it now. You're implying that I'm correct and that you are wrong.
Now I understand how language works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Sept 28, 2019 12:03:49 GMT -5
“The transcript does NOT imply what Woodruff insisted that it does. I know it doesn't because I read it and did not come to the same conclusion.”
I have read the transcript and have come to the opposite conclusion.
Mike
|
|
