Donald is here to stay, now what? Cursing and swearing OK

[Seabass]

NYT: Uproar Over Purported Ban at C.D.C. of Words Like ‘Fetus’

[Hermit]

I don't buy an unnamed source, with no other corroboration mentioned, on anything.

On the other hand I have not noticed you objecting to blatantly obvious lies by Trump and his sycophants. Do you really need corroboration about the inaugural crowd? The claim that the US is the highest developed nation taxed in the world? The NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process? Being wiretapped? The murder rate being the highest in 47 years? Thousands of Muslims on nearby rooftops cheering on the collapse of the World Trade Towers? The head of the scouts calling his speech the best ever? ... Need i go on?

None of these, and more Trump inventions were even backed up by anonymous sources or any other form of corroboration. No objection from you, and yet you choose to set a different standard for accepting other claims and allegations. Well done, Seth. Business Hypocrisy as usual.

[Animavore]

Isn't it amazing that whenever we look into the articles that 42 posts, they often don't say what he claims they say?

It's like talking to creationists, in a way. Did you ever have a creationist smugly drop an article they believe backs their case but then you read it and it says the opposite of what they think it says.

That's the problem with believing in bullshit. You have to prop your beliefs with more bullshit and hope no one notices.

[Brian Peacock]

All stories from anonymous sources are just as likely to be false as to be true, so unless a news organisation gives the names and addresses of it's sources to 42 we can probably just dismiss it as bunkum.

It's not an either/or proposition. A story based on "an unnamed source" is very weak. Journalist ethics has traditionally required corroboration. You don't just go with "an unnamed source." You need to to be able to confirm the information. E.g. see the article I linked and quoted at length above where Ari Fleischer refers to times when he was giving the press information and he would not go on record at the time. The journalists would demand corroboration.

On a story that sounds outrageous -- the CDC being told that 7 words are being banned and those words include "evidence based" and "fetus" and "diversity" and "transgender" etc. -- something that sounds so out in left field, that it doesn't even make sense as to why they would need to do this and what they would stand to gain from it -- after a series of stories where the media is being told things by unnamed sources which turn out to be complete bullshit, and where the HHS has said outright that the notion ofthe 7 banned words is "a complete mischaracterization," there ought to be a rather healthy dose of skepticism.

For me, it's tissue paper thin, and the idea of the ban is so ridiculous that for me to accept it, I'd need to not only trust the reporter making the claim, but I'd need to be willing to accept that the reporter has vetted the unnamed source and gotten some sort of corroboration or confirmation on the source's information, even though the article does not say that any such vetting took place or any such corroboration or confirmation took place. It's not unusual for people to embellish, take words out of context and twist words into meanings that are not fair under the circumstances, and this is particularly true where there is so much open vitriol against the current administration.

It's not per se wrong to use an unnamed source, but I frankly can't take the WaPo or CNN's word about it. Given how those outlets have been quick on the draw, and failed to vet unnamed sources recently, and very giddy and hopeful that their unconfirmed stories would be true, they need a dose of skepticism.

Is there enough evidence of the assertion here, in your view?

You say it's not either/or, but you present only an 'either' - that journalists 'just went with an unnamed source'.

And does the story really 'sound outrageous' or is it that you think the idea of an administration being prescriptive about language in this way is 'outrageous', and therefore it's safe to assume the story is false?

Now if the story is 'weak' rather than false, then which parts of it do you think probably run close to the facts and which bits don't?

Clearly, you can't answer that because you're not in possession of the facts but you're still happy to let us know how the information presented might be wrong. Still, while you're happy to uncritically accept an official statement which doesn't actually address the matter the problem here is, as you say yourself, that you don't trust the reporter or the organisation that employs them.

Trustworthiness is a major factor here isn't it? So what outlet would you trust to report on this, and have they done so, and how likely are you to get honest, unbiased reporting of this matter from that outlet over any other?

The point here of course is that some people have expended a great deal of time, energy and money into denigrating the media organisations which they feel undermine or hurt them politically, first by characterising all the major outlets as automatically biased and corrupt, and then by applying the branding term 'The Mainstream Media', or MSM, to those outlets, and now simply by invoking the slogan #FAKENEWS or referring to 'The FAKE NEWS Media' as the President routinely uses at press conferences. 'The FAKE NEWS Media' cannot be trusted because, apparently, they have a partisan agenda, and so anything they do publish is bound to be skewed or errant or just plain wrong. You should ask yourself (America, collectively) who is actually laying claim to the truth here, and what are they bringing to the table by way of support that claim. You should be highly suspicious of any party which is just setting out to raise doubt without actually meeting that claim, any party which says "I'm not telling you what is true by I can certainly tell you what is false," and anyone employing the implication that 'the FAKE NEWS media is wrong because it's the FAKE NEWS media'. This is something that should raise your hackles as much as dishonesty, injustice or corruption of any sort.

But then again, I would say that wouldn't I(?) because I'm a Marxist Democrat-loving Feminize-cock-sucking-snobby-holier-than-thou-so-called-civilised-European, eh?

[Animavore]

You forgot 'cuck'.

[Tero]

Moderate Republicans and Trump:

A year later, Cohen, a top official in President George W. Bush’s administration, and another charter #NeverTrump proselytizer, his fellow conservative Max Boot, hardly back down when asked whether their predictions of global gloom and doom had been proven right in the first year of the Trump presidency. Both men, lifelong Republicans and historically minded policy intellectuals, offered unequivocal yeses in a joint interview for this week’s Global Politico podcast – and castigated former friends inside the party they’ve both now renounced as “Vichy Republicans” for collaborating with a president they believe is not fit to hold office.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... 3?lo=ap_a1

[Animavore]

Look like Trump supporters are copping on to themselves. Took your fucking time.

Trump’s Popularity Is Plummeting—Even Among Fox News Viewers

President Donald Trump loves Fox News, but fans of the conservative-leaning network are starting to like him a lot less.

In June, 90 percent of respondents in a Suffolk University poll who said they trust Fox over other news networks viewed Trump favorably, but by October, approval had fallen to 74 percent, The Washington Post reported Thursday. It then plummeted to 58 percent in December. That’s a 32-point drop in six months.

http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-populari ... ers-748765


Only a few thick cunts left apologising for this cancer.

[Animavore]

Apparently, according to the poisonous words of some Trump-supporting vermin I inadvertently read, this is what 'hope' looks like.

Trump’s decision to allow tip-pooling could cost workers $5.8 billion

A new rule designed to level wages between workers could end up hurting their incomes

Waiters and waitresses could take home significantly less money if a new rule proposed by the Trump administration this month is passed, critics say.

Changes proposed by the Department of Labor on Dec. 5 would allow employers to legally pocket tips that servers earn at restaurants. The change, which would repeal part of a 2011 ruling that said employers could not pocket their workers’ tips, is meant to level a growing disparity between what tipped employees like servers make compared with back-of-house employees like cooks. After the changes, employers could take all tips earned by servers and redistribute them to employees that are not tipped.

That sounds like a fair plan, in theory.

However, there is no guarantee employers would redistribute pooled tips and critics say economic models show they will likely pocket them instead. “If this proposed rule were finalized, restaurant owners could pocket between $523 million and $14.2 billion — with $5.8 billion being the best estimate — in tips earned by tipped workers each year,” according to Economic Policy Institute economists Heidi Shierholz, David Cooper, Julia Wolfe, and Ben Zipperer.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump ... 2017-12-13

Hack! Spit!

[Brian Peacock]

Come on. If you're going to tip your waitresses and waiters it's only fair that their employer gets a cut - those guys wouldn't even have a job if wasn't for the restauranters anyway - their staff owe them for that at least.

[Animavore]

Fox News viewers. A worldview built on falsehoods.

http://www.scarymommy.com/wont-tolerate ... _source=FB

[Animavore]

Scumbaggery without end.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/two-fe ... g.facebook

[Animavore]

[Seabass]

Trustworthiness is a major factor here isn't it? So what outlet would you trust to report on this, and have they done so, and how likely are you to get honest, unbiased reporting of this matter from that outlet over any other?

Well let's see...

Untrustworthy:
"WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, ABCNews, etc.," have no credibility.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1743501

CNN and the Guardian are "far left".

Slate is "left-wing clickbait".

Trustworthy:
Donald Trump, one of the worst pathological liars history has ever known.

Some weirdo anarcho-capitalist named Jeffrey Tucker who once wrote racist newsletters for Ron Paul.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1743150

A website called "Strategic Culture Foundation", whatever the fuck that is.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1743504
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... -myth.html



So clearly, the rest of need to break free from all those mainstream sources like the venerable Washington Post, known for breaking the Watergate story, and we need to get on board with "Strategic Culture Foundation", which I'm sure is totally trustworthy.

[Forty Two]

I don't buy an unnamed source, with no other corroboration mentioned, on anything.

On the other hand I have not noticed you objecting to blatantly obvious lies by Trump and his sycophants.

May I also use the argument that "you haven't objected to what Hillary or some other politician you support have been doing/saying?" Usually, I'm scolded for pointing out that people objecting to X by Trump or whoever, are strangely silent about politicians they agree with.

That being said, let me know what blatant lie you're referring to, and which sycophant. That way I can object to it, if I agree that it is a blatant lie.

Do you really need corroboration about the inaugural crowd?

Well, yes, becasue (a) I could give a shit less how big or small an inaugural crowd is, and (b) the argument by the Trump crowd was that the images and "counts" compared were from different times in the day and were comparing apples to oranges. So, who is right? I don't really care. It's like someone puffing up their products in a retail store. "World's Best Coffee!" Do you expect us to believe that they actually have the World's best coffee there? Or, it's like "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!" If we're going to object to all these kinds of "lies" then who shall 'scape whipping?

The claim that the US is the highest developed nation taxed in the world?

He's generally referring to the corporate tax rate, which the US is at or near the top. Trump talks in superlatives and hyperbole. I don't hold him to exactitude on those kinds of things. He's talking in generalities, like how everything is the best and huge, or it's terrible.

The NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process?

That depends on what you mean by "electoral process." Does running a propaganda campaign inflence the electoral process? Advertisements and news articles have influence, sure. But, did Russia tip the election? Did they hack the voting booths? No. According to CIA Director Pompeo, the "intelligence community's assessment is that the Russian meddling that took place did not affect the outcome of the election." He said that while speaking at an event hosted by Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Need i go on?

Sure - should I go on about any politician? Hillary Clinton? Obama? They all lie about bullshit like that. Most of that is nonsense.

None of these, and more Trump inventions were even backed up by anonymous sources or any other form of corroboration. No objection from you, and yet you choose to set a different standard for accepting other claims and allegations. Well done, Seth. Business Hypocrisy as usual.

LOL - so I should believe a reporter for CNN or something, who tells me after getting egg on their faces 5 times over anonymous sources that turned out to be bullshit, because Trump embellishes crowd sizes and says what the CIA Director Pompeo said (that the Russians did not influence the outcome of the election)?

[Feck]

US President Donald Trump's latest judiciary nominee has withdrawn his name after failing to answer basic legal questions at his Senate confirmation hearing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42405942