https://www.newsweek.com/washington-post-correction-triggers-furious-debate-about-whether-false-report-influenced-*********1576326
Washington Post Correction Triggers Furious Debate About Whether False Report Influenced Georgia Senate Race
The Cover Contest Weekly Winners ThreadSo much winning!!
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
“It’s your party and you can cry if you want to.” - Captain Europe
Yep. "Find evidence of X" and "Do this and you will find evidence of X" are different claims.
This is meaningful since the impeachment trial was rushed, and part of the argument for the impeachment trial was Trump's calls to Georgia officials.
If appealing to Ben Shaprio or David Rubin is enough to explain why Andrew Yang is the frontrunner to win the Democratic nomination for mayor, that represents a serious missed opportunity for other political figures.
It's also potentially a smart move in the long term, if he wants to ever win a national election.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
Honestly?
I don't care one bit about the impeachment component.
That someone decided to just straight up bend the truth on what actually was said when the actual reality would inevitably eventually come out?
It gives blockheads like Cruz and Gaetz a legitimate issue to point to the next time a Republican is trying to get elected.
It is an unforced error that only stands to potentially benefit politicians who are regularly standing in the way of actual progress.
There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!
Those sound the same to me. And the call to election officials they used for impeachment was to the Sec of State, for which the tape was released to the public, so "Find me the votes" was entirely accurate.
It would be disingenuous to not admit what Trump was doing. It was quite obvious and overt.
There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!
I can probably approximate an argument about how an actress putting Beep/bop/boop in her twitter bio is denying trans people their basic human rights, but my understanding of that question is not the same as yours. It would be rude of me to make potentially incorrect assumptions about your political understanding, when there are nuances that I don't know (Do you think she wrote that in order to mock trans people? Do you think it's right to call for her firing even if you didn't think she was trying to mock trans people because there's a greater good? Do you think swing voters in Arizona, Georgia or New Hampshire agree this was cause to fire her? What percentage of people who announce their pronouns in twitter bios/ email signatures do you think are trans?) which are likely to affect where you're coming from.
The question of whether these are irrelevant comparisons depends on what the argument is. It may be relevant if the question is about consistency or whether statements represent an accurate representation of the world.
If a potential problem is that uninformed progressives may dismiss accurate information as right-wing propaganda, informed progressives (as well as informed moderates and conservatives) should politely point out the facts. Otherwise, if someone does a modicum of research and learns that the progressive is wrong, they may conclude that they should dismiss everything the person has to say.
There's also a mistake in assuming that conservatives are a hivemind, all acting the same way. Some will argue in bad faith, just as some liberals will argue in bad faith. Some won't argue in bad faith, but may come from a different perspective/ frame of reference.
Is it because he went on shows with hosts you disagree with, or something else (inexperience, his lack of familiarity with local politics, a preference for another candidate, etc)?
Last edited by Mister Mets; 03-16-2021 at 04:58 PM.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
I'm going to have to assume you did not actually read the piece. From said piece...
All that said...Correction, March 16, 2021, 2:39 p.m. EST — This story has been corrected to clarify that the Washington Post's original story was published after the Georgia Senate runoffs.
That they flubbed their dates does not change that FNC is not dictating who and how this issue is being covered.
I am not at this point polls mean much in the NY Mayor. And the Dem primaries have notoriously low turn out.
There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!
So...
Obvious issue there?
That if folks were applying the same critical view to other pieces that they did to that flub(and not just try to create a scenario where it is part of a conspiracy?...)?
That would probably be a more beneficial approach.
Not trying to point at the "Who?..." when a person sees what they don't like the looks of.