|
Post by millring on Sept 27, 2019 14:31:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 27, 2019 14:32:08 GMT -5
Here's the video of that interview. Maybe my monitor's color balance is off, but I don't see "red-faced," nor does her affect strike me as angry. In fact, she shows patience in the, um, face of Kellyanne's motormouth recitation of already-familiar WH talking points. Recitation of which, to be fair, is her job, and she's very good at it--unflappable and shameless as she repeats what she has to know are untruths. www.pbs.org/newshour/show/kellyanne-conway-claims-trumps-transparency-proves-he-did-nothing-wrong-in-ukraine-callAs for "debated": I could hear Conway's evasions, elisions, omissions, distortions, and plain old lies as she uttered them. If I'd been interviewing her, I would have challenged those in the same way that Woodruff did. No surprise there. I didn't watch the clip just know how you would respond regardless.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 27, 2019 14:32:56 GMT -5
They're all full of Schiff.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 27, 2019 14:45:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 27, 2019 14:50:20 GMT -5
John, what got my attention was "with red-faced anger," which (since I've been watching Woodruff for decades) struck me as unlikely. So I went and looked and did not see what you described.
And FWIW, were I doing that kind of journalism, I'd call Schiff on overstatements, inaccuracies, unexamined assumptions, mischaracterizations, and whatever else seemed to get in the way of a clear understanding of the situation.
Both sides are engaging in what we in the literary-analysis biz call "readings" of a text--which includes an understanding of context, history, rhetoric, and the various modes of saying-without-saying that operate in poetry as well as politics (or domestic arguments). With Schiff, I'd want to emphasize exactly what he was doing in that clip that Bruce points to--performing a reading of the text and the context that expresses why he thinks it's a serious matter. Is he "disinterested"? Of course not. Is Kellyanne? Well, duh, she works for Trump. (And FWIW Part Deux, Schiff is not the first guy to see Godfatherish behavior in the Don's negotiating style. Once the parallels are seen, they can't be unseen.)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 27, 2019 15:22:28 GMT -5
Both sides are engaging in what we in the literary-analysis biz call "readings" of a text--which includes an understanding of context And watch it again. Woodruff insist on how the transcript must be interpreted. She insists three times "It implies....". I've read the transcript. I don't agree. She infers. And she didn't challenge Schiff once.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 27, 2019 15:41:55 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.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Sept 27, 2019 17:13:29 GMT -5
I shudder to think how ugly this is going to get.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Sept 27, 2019 17:19:38 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.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 27, 2019 17:22:26 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.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 27, 2019 17:28:27 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. The globalists want one world government and they mean it to be them not us.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 27, 2019 17:40:44 GMT -5
You've seen the future. How can you not support The Federation? Individual countries can't stand up to the Romulans. Or individual planets, for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 27, 2019 17:50:14 GMT -5
You've seen the future. How can you not support The Federation? Individual countries can't stand up to the Romulans. Or individual planets, for that matter. Yeah but the Yangs beat the Comms as I recall.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Sept 27, 2019 19:10:04 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. I'm pretty sure you could substitute "Republicans" for Democrats and the last sentence would still apply.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Sept 27, 2019 19:11:01 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. The globalists want one world government and they mean it to be them not us. Wow. You seem to live in a reality I've never seen.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 27, 2019 19:13:41 GMT -5
The globalists want one world government and they mean it to be them not us. Wow. You seem to live in a reality I've never seen. See an eye doctor.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 27, 2019 20:01:21 GMT -5
"See an eye doctor." I did that today. Eyes, unlike wine, do not improve with age. Driving home with dilated pupils in the desert glare is an adventure.
I think the forum needs occasional political threads just as geysers need occasional eruptions.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Sept 27, 2019 20:42:24 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.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Sept 27, 2019 20:49:50 GMT -5
You've seen the future. How can you not support The Federation? Individual countries can't stand up to the Romulans. Or individual planets, for that matter. Yeah but the Yangs beat the Comms as I recall. I thought the yins beat the yangs. But run that by Andrew to confirm it.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 27, 2019 20:58:11 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. 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. Nixon was 50 years ago. The Swamp has grown and rotted around you in the meantime. Might be tough to see from the inside.
|
|