(07-28-2020 11:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This post is why I have pointed out how condescending and fatherly your posts often are - see the bold. You're acting as if you're trying to enlighten me.

Lad.... first... Did you not consider what YOU wrote that prompted that comment?

I'm not sure which situation has me chuckling more .... you spending so much time to write such a spirited defense of a rather comedic occurrence.

So you're laughing at me and you don't find THAT insulting? I guess I should call you a petulant child, since you call me condescending and fatherly?

If I said... I'm laughing at you (which I did in response) I would expect you to take offense to it. That's why I specifically did it.

Quote:But more importantly, there is a clear difference between attacked the Times and defending Trump. In this instance, you're using a grab bag of less believable methods to attack the Times by suggesting they are lying or using dishonest sources. Go ahead and attack them for reporting on something you think isn't valuable (like you just did), but you tried to argue that they talked to AOC or intentionally misrepresented what happened.

That is a bridge to far that goes beyond attacking the Times and defending Trump.

How does an obviously farcical interpretation of their 'official familiar with his response' 'defend' Trump rather than attack the Times? They didn't even use the old 'White House Official', merely 'official'.... which I clearly noted could be quite literally ANY 'official' person who had been informed of his comment, including someone highly critical of him like AOC.

How you read that as 'defense' of Trump rather than an indictment of the clear bias by the times is really beyond me.

Quote:Honestly, this type of reporting does matter, because it provides further insight into the psyche and disposition of the POTUS. And POTUS has a lot of power and influence, so it's good to understand his psyche - for better or worse.

Talk about a bridge too far. So you feel you get insight into people's psyche by unsubstantiated perspectives from unknown sources? Or does it simply add weight to the opinion you already had? If they said they thought he was brilliant and humble, would that similarly give you insight? The CEO of Goya foods recently essentially did that, and the left responded by boycotting it. It seems not everyone agrees with your 'insight' comment... or maybe they think only anonymous sources give insight?

News: Facts. Trump said this.
Opinion: Speculation as to 'why' he said that, clearly identified as a possibility or opinion. It MIGHT have been because of Fauci
Opinion being presented as News: the presentation of that speculation as 'fact'.... aka Tabloid journalism or similar.

Let me try and demonstrate the difference:

Trump started talking recently about fulfilling the open invitation he's had to throw out a first pitch for the Yankees. Although he hadn't yet confirmed it with either the Yankees or his staff, he told reporters that he was going to do it on the 15th. Given that Fauci recently did that for the Nats, some have speculated that perhaps Trump's ego makes him need to try and get back into the spotlight.

That is a news story that includes clear opinion.... so it's still news.

What you quoted above is not.

Here are the things I have trouble with in the snippet of the story you gave

1) the 'official'. The use of 'White House Official' to imply some sort of inside knowledge or weight is all but ubiquitous within the media. The fact that they instead claim 'an official familiar with his response' jumps out to me. Not WH Official, not Party Official, not Presidential Office Official... but 'official familiar with what he said'... that literally to me could be anyone.

2) Other than they're familiar with his reaction (does that mean someone told them about it, or they were present for it?) is there anything that causes you to believe that this person actually HAS any insight into Trump's psyche? If it doesn't, and I don't see that it does, then your response above is completely moot.

3) 'the problem' that although Trump had already had his people reach out to the Yankees, that they didn't confirm a date... so Trump's 'I think I'm doing that 8/15' is somehow a 'problem'.

All of this is completely unrelated to WHY he's doing this... but does it not seem likely that when Trump's people reached out to them... that they said things like...
a) is the offer still good?
b) what dates are available?
and c) that 8/15 was likely among those dates.... but as it had not yet come back to Trump, that nothing was finalized?

So the only 'problem' is that apparently Trump told reporters that he thought he would do this 8/15, apparently AFTER confirming that the Yankees would still allow it and that the date was open, but BEFORE making it official. As if that matters one bit. Yeah, I thought I'd do it the 15thm, but then something came up on MY schedule (when it was really on the Yankee's schedule) so we moved it to the 24th. NO Mr President, you can't do that because you told a reporter that you 'think' you're doing it the 15th... so now it's the 15th or never... yeah right.

So yes, I see this as just another attempt to add 'volume' (Trump's 'problem') to a complaint (Trump's ego) in order to tap into the large and voracious appetite for dirt from the left.... which is tabloid journalism... not news. I would and have said the same about others... I remember a lot of people making issues about Obama and his 57 states comments... to which I very clearly said... I don't know if he got tongue tied or was simply tired or whatever else, but we all know... especially as someone who was born in the 50th state (like my mom was, though before it was the 50th state) and went to elementary school there, not long after it became a nation (like I did)... that he knows there aren't 57 states.

I saw that as the same sort of 'add on' to legitimate complaints about his policies.

At Ease is only demonstrating my point by adding nothing at all to the conversation other than memes, name calling and drivel. You and I lad, frequently get into it... but we also frequently add meaningful commentary in the process. Some fairly regularly do not at all.