Trump (Read 584569 times)

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #800 on: September 07, 2018, 05:47:03 PM »
And judges are expected to recuse themselves when a conflict -- demonstrable or not -- exists.  Failure to do so may be the basis for appeal.

Your lack of understanding of bias and the judicial system is appalling, especially considering you've had law classes.

Judges recuse themselves because of a direct connection to cases. If judges had to recuse themselves because of a political bias then you could never have any judge who ever voted in a government election or ever said anything remotely political. Maybe you should take a few law classes.

Your claim that Woodward being a democrat discounts any political reporting he does is baseless. You look for bias and recognize it but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Please do tell me then when you find a journalist who doesn't have any bias whatsoever.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #801 on: September 07, 2018, 05:57:19 PM »
I don't use google. Or facebook. Or twitter. Etc. And my startpage and duckduckgo skills are just fine.

Ok, duly noted.

Quote
I guess your reading skills need some work. First of all I wrote "critical" of that Obama administration. Second, "Obama's Wars" is not critical of Obama. If anything it makes Obama out to be some sort of long-suffering genius who must suffer the slings and arrows of ignorant and insistent military and intelligence personnel who are incapable of accepting their leader's genius nature. Third, "The Price of Politics" isn't really about Obama at all and certainly not critical of him nor his administration.

Did you read those books because the reviews I saw of them certainly don't support what you say.

Quote
It's likely that it's just a coincidence that he found nothing to be critical of in the Obama administration... you know, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, Gruber intentional lies re Obamacare, pallets of cash to Iran, etc. etc. etc. Maybe Woodward was busy doing other things... like writing a book about what a military genius Obama was... and stuff.

And nothing "proves" that he is telling the truth or that anyone can trust anything he wrote.

Except that Woodward was critical of the Obama administration on a number of occasions.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #802 on: September 07, 2018, 07:20:06 PM »
Judges recuse themselves because of a direct connection to cases. If judges had to recuse themselves because of a political bias then you could never have any judge who ever voted in a government election or ever said anything remotely political. Maybe you should take a few law classes.

Your claim that Woodward being a democrat discounts any political reporting he does is baseless. You look for bias and recognize it but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Please do tell me then when you find a journalist who doesn't have any bias whatsoever.

Please cite the source you took that from.  Your claim, your duty to support it.  (Your rules)

Here's a clue:

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciaryfinancial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2018, 07:25:08 PM by Flapp_Jackson »
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #803 on: September 07, 2018, 08:17:02 PM »
I do wonder how the NYT made the decision that this wasn't a joke and decided to publish.

Some will believe it was just a made up political hit piece to attack Trump and either they knew it or were too eager to believe it but outside of that theory there are a few systems in place.

I just listened to a podcast with a few reporters and editors and they explained the process of anonymous sources as well as what "off the record" meant.

The reported explained that it was pretty standard that for a source to be anonymous both the reporter and the editor had to know the identity of the individual. They would also make their own checks on the person to see whether they were really in a position to know what they claim and that they weren't just making up information.

The NYT is a huge name in newspapers and despite whatever bias they may have I really don't think they would have taken this decision lightly. I am sure they considered the backlash, any legal hurdles, and their reputation.

A radio show host I listen to talked about an interesting point, that if the NYT hadn't published it, someone else probably would have, and that is a concern for news agencies. If the source is verifiable and it is worthy of news then there is a good reason to take it.


I do think that the fact that Trump demanded the source kind of lends credence to the letter not being totally fake. There is a certain amount of risk to this type of thing. If it is fake then they have egg on their face, but if everything in the letter is true then it is important news.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #804 on: September 07, 2018, 08:32:46 PM »
Please cite the source you took that from.  Your claim, your duty to support it.  (Your rules)

Here's a clue:

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

Of course, if a judge has a bias or prejudice to a party they should recuse themselves, but I think you are jumping the gun. The use of the word "party" there does not mean a political bias but a party in a court case. As in an individual or entity that is involved in the case, like as a defendant or a complainant. It doesn't mean judges have to recuse themselves because they have political opinions. But thank you for posting the rules which verified my statement but not yours.

Now after all of that lets get back to the fact that we are talking about journalists here, not a judge deciding someone's legal fate. If journalists recused themselves because they had political opinions you would never have any news. Instead what we do (what we should do) is recognize bias and account for it when we consume news and when we report news.

Too many people act as if bias allows them to ignore news they don't like. Liberals claim that so they don't have to acknowledge what Fox reports and conservatives do that so they don't have to acknowledge what CNN/MSNBC/etc reports. Basically summed up here is the idea that Woodward is biased, therefore nothing in his book is true. No critical thinking, just a safe space where people don't have to acknowledge uncomfortable facts and issues.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #805 on: September 08, 2018, 12:09:32 AM »
Of course, if a judge has a bias or prejudice to a party they should recuse themselves, but I think you are jumping the gun. The use of the word "party" there does not mean a political bias but a party in a court case. As in an individual or entity that is involved in the case, like as a defendant or a complainant. It doesn't mean judges have to recuse themselves because they have political opinions. But thank you for posting the rules which verified my statement but not yours.

Now after all of that lets get back to the fact that we are talking about journalists here, not a judge deciding someone's legal fate. If journalists recused themselves because they had political opinions you would never have any news. Instead what we do (what we should do) is recognize bias and account for it when we consume news and when we report news.

Too many people act as if bias allows them to ignore news they don't like. Liberals claim that so they don't have to acknowledge what Fox reports and conservatives do that so they don't have to acknowledge what CNN/MSNBC/etc reports. Basically summed up here is the idea that Woodward is biased, therefore nothing in his book is true. No critical thinking, just a safe space where people don't have to acknowledge uncomfortable facts and issues.

OMG.

Like talking to a know-it-all Liberal 9th grader.



The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

punaperson

Re: Trump
« Reply #806 on: September 08, 2018, 05:43:13 AM »
OMG.

Like talking to a know-it-all Liberal 9th grader.
Why do you insult know-it-all Liberal 9th graders?

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #807 on: September 08, 2018, 11:41:22 AM »
Obama claims the current "Trump economy" is his economy. Claims the "recovery that started under him" is still working well.

Yet, during the 2016 campaign, Obama said the manufacturing jobs we lost in the great recession are NEVER COMING BACK.

How can his policies have brought back jobs when his policies, according to Obama himself, would never bring those jobs back?

More Obama lies.  But because he spoke the words, they must be true.




The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

changemyoil66

Re: Trump
« Reply #808 on: September 08, 2018, 01:00:49 PM »
Econ fails, trumps fault. Econ gets better=obamas doing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #809 on: September 08, 2018, 08:53:39 PM »
OMG.


9th graders must routinely defeat you in debates?

punaperson

Re: Trump
« Reply #810 on: September 09, 2018, 07:12:11 AM »
9th graders must routinely defeat you in debates?
quod erat demonstrandum

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #811 on: September 09, 2018, 01:12:42 PM »
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #812 on: September 09, 2018, 10:31:43 PM »
 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



Quote
About 750 people attended the event at Anaheim Convention Center, where Obama delivered a short speech
centered on unity and the “politics of hope.” And, after a story about getting kicked out of Disneyland when he
was caught smoking in the Magic Kingdom after a concert as a teenager, Obama issued an impassioned
critique of Trump and the state of American democracy and encouraged the crowd to back the candidates he
came to support.


https://thinkprogress.org/obama-anaheim-rally-congressional-candidates-c25cbed28812/
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

Inspector

Re: Trump
« Reply #813 on: September 10, 2018, 06:02:19 AM »
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:




https://thinkprogress.org/obama-anaheim-rally-congressional-candidates-c25cbed28812/
Sounds like Hillary Clinton during her campaign,  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

As before the last election, even the polls are showing significant Republican losses in the house while the senate is expected to remain about the same. Another difference this time is that this time the Rasmussen polls are in sync somewhat with the MSM polls.

While I don’t want to speculate that there is some meaning to all this, it is beginning to look eerily familiar to the last election.
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #814 on: September 10, 2018, 10:39:18 AM »
Sounds like Hillary Clinton during her campaign,  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

As before the last election, even the polls are showing significant Republican losses in the house while the senate is expected to remain about the same. Another difference this time is that this time the Rasmussen polls are in sync somewhat with the MSM polls.

While I don’t want to speculate that there is some meaning to all this, it is beginning to look eerily familiar to the last election.

Polls are not intended to measure public opinion. 

Polls are intended to shape public opinion.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #815 on: September 10, 2018, 11:07:07 AM »
A lot of people have said Kaepernick should just do what he is paid to do, play football and not turn the game into political messages. A fair argument but if the argument is to be held consistent then Trump should keep his mouth shut about sports games. His job is to negotiate and sign laws, not chime in about Nike or Kaepernick.

Inspector

Re: Trump
« Reply #816 on: September 10, 2018, 11:59:56 AM »
A lot of people have said Kaepernick should just do what he is paid to do, play football and not turn the game into political messages. A fair argument but if the argument is to be held consistent then Trump should keep his mouth shut about sports games. His job is to negotiate and sign laws, not chime in about Nike or Kaepernick.
Then I guess you don’t fully understand the job of the president.  ::) ::) ::)
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #817 on: September 10, 2018, 12:22:26 PM »
A lot of people have said Kaepernick should just do what he is paid to do, play football and not turn the game into political messages. A fair argument but if the argument is to be held consistent then Trump should keep his mouth shut about sports games. His job is to negotiate and sign laws, not chime in about Nike or Kaepernick.

I missed the part where President Trump signed a contract as an employee of a private company, and where he is now using the soap box paid for by that company to literally steal national broadcast coverage for himself personally.

And, no, trolling the media for free campaign coverage doesn't count   :geekdanc:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

changemyoil66

Re: Trump
« Reply #818 on: September 10, 2018, 12:31:31 PM »
1 could argue that since Trump is the POTUS, he is defending what the flag represents by bashing Kap, Nike, etc...

And let's all be honest, when Kap 1st didn't stand, he was doing nothing for the black community.  His first donation didn't come till 2 weeks later.  He didn't foresee what it would have grown into.

But still, I don't see Kap in Chicago or talking to PD like how Snoop does.  He's taking the easy way out, by throwing money and speaking at events that cops don't attend.  So he's not educating anyone.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #819 on: September 10, 2018, 07:54:00 PM »
I missed the part where President Trump signed a contract as an employee of a private company, and where he is now using the soap box paid for by that company to literally steal national broadcast coverage for himself personally.

And, no, trolling the media for free campaign coverage doesn't count   :geekdanc:

Literally steal? That is literally not theft.

If you think he is just doing this for himself then I don't think you understand the issue. You can disagree with him just as I do but I am under no illusion that he is doing this for fame or popularity.

No one had to make it a news issue that he kneeled during the national anthem. It got more attention because of people's outrage than because he made a political statement. The media didn't have to give him any coverage, yet they gave it to him freely.

Trump is free to comment away and Kaepernick is free to protest but if Kaepernick should just shut up and play football then Trump should shut up and do president stuff.