US Politics Mega-thread - Page 501
Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
It's as blatant of lying as the "Kelly was mad about the breakfast" BS last week. That woman is a national disgrace. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 19 2018 05:30 Grumbels wrote: Before I quit twitter, I would get all my news from there. If all of a sudden they decided to remove anything with “editorial bias” there would be hardly anything left but links to NYT articles. would you prefer your news with more or less "editorial bias"? | ||
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On July 19 2018 04:50 Plansix wrote: Trump and Putin discussed extraditing Bill Browder to Russia? And now the White House won’t say we are absolutely not going to give him to the Russians? Are you fucking kidding me? Are we going to give Preet Bharara to Turkey next? This White House is a joke that can't even defend American citizens. This has been clear as day to me ever since their disgracefully timid response to Erdogan's bodyguards attacking protestors in D.C., but I don't think Bill Browder is actually a US citizen. Still terrible nevertheless. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 19 2018 05:30 Grumbels wrote: Before I quit twitter, I would get all my news from there. If all of a sudden they decided to remove anything with “editorial bias” there would be hardly anything left but links to NYT articles. All news is biased, that is the nature of reporting. But these websites have made this myth about being neutral to protect themselves from having to give a shit about what claims to be news on their site. And they do so with a lot of legal protection from laws written in the 1990s. They should just grow up and get an editorial staff, or verify what they want to label as news, rather than pumping this myth that software will somehow remove human bias from the equation. On July 19 2018 05:39 Tachion wrote: This has been clear as day to me ever since their disgracefully timid response to Erdogan's bodyguards attacking protestors in D.C., but I don't think Bill Browder is actually a US citizen. Still terrible nevertheless. I forgot he gave up his citizenship to avoid US taxes. Not a great look, but we shouldn't even be talking about that with Putin. He is the reason we know about the depth of Russia's abuse of their own citizens and why we sanctioned them. | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On July 19 2018 05:37 zlefin wrote: would you prefer your news with more or less editorial bias? I followed journalists and they would link articles they agreed with. I don’t really see the distinction between news and editorials at that point, since it is in the context of these people on twitter who have their own biases in how they frame articles and what they select from it. And frankly, I don’t want to consume “raw news”, I think that is for academics or enthusiasts. I can be informed by editorials even if the author has their own bias. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States22722 Posts
On July 19 2018 05:51 Plansix wrote: An editorial is from the editorial department of the news outlet. Reporters work for the news section. They are two completely separate teams that do not overlap in any way. They even have separate chief editors. What are some publications where the editorial staff have significantly different positions/outlooks than the reporting staff? I mean the only thing that comes to mind is the NYT being heralded as a liberal point of light but it's editorials mostly being right of center. I think this idea that the editorial staff is totally different bias than the reporting staff is overplayed. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Ahead of Robert Wilkie’s likely confirmation to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, Trump loyalists at the agency are taking aggressive steps to purge or reassign staff perceived to be disloyal to President Trump and his agenda for veterans, according to multiple people familiar with the moves. The transfers include more than a dozen career civil servants who have been moved from the leadership suite at VA headquarters and reassigned to lower-visibility roles. The employees served agency leaders, some dating back more than two decades, in crucial support roles that help a new secretary. None say they were given reasons for their reassignments. The moves are being carried out by a small cadre of political appointees led by Acting Secretary Peter O’Rourke who have consolidated power in the four months since they helped oust former Secretary David Shulkin. The reshuffling marks a new stage in a long estrangement between civil servants and Trump loyalists at VA, where staff upheaval and sinking morale threatens to derail service to one of the president’s key constituencies, according to current and former employees. Among those reassigned is an experienced scheduler who Wilkie told colleagues he wanted to work for him once he is confirmed by the Senate, according to former and current employees. Other career senior executives with institutional knowledge of VA’s troubled benefits operation also have been sidelined, some to other cities, according to multiple people who asked not to be identified because of the issue’s sensitivity. A high-ranking executive appointed during the Obama administration to a six-year term quit last week after clashing with Trump aides. Even some Trump appointees have been pushed out for challenging the leadership group. VA officials say the reassignments will help their efforts to improve the agency’s overall culture and performance. Still, it is highly unusual for a leader in an acting, caretaker role — which began for O’Rourke on May 30 — to make such dramatic changes before a permanent leader arrives. “Under President Trump, VA won’t wait to take necessary action when it comes to improving the department and its service to Veterans,” spokesman Curt Cashour said in an email. Wilkie, according to Cashour and a spokeswoman for the nominee, has had no hand in the changes as he awaits Senate confirmation. Current and former employees — and now alarmed members of Congress — call the reshuffling a loyalty purge that is targeting the alleged political sympathies of many career civil servants whose jobs are, by definition, nonpartisan. “These are people who served multiple administrations,” said one employee who was moved, “but they only want them to serve the Trump administration. You can’t run a department like that.” At a House hearing on Tuesday, a visibly irritated Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.) pressed O’Rourke to explain why he has “removed, demoted or reassigned” a “significant number of career employees.” O’Rourke called his actions “well-planned and designed moves” to improve “efficiency and effectiveness.” He acknowledged changes were not based on poor performance. He said he is encouraging other VA leaders to follow suit. Esty countered that she suspects “loyalty concerns”are behind the transfers. “To be clearing out that many people during the time of an acting secretary is disturbing,” she said. “You’re going to lose institutional knowledge.” Presidential loyalty also has been a factor in staff changes at other agencies. The State Department sidelined or pushed out dozens of career diplomats who questioned the agency’s diminished role in the Trump administration. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke reassigned dozens of senior executives in two shuffles. Critics said the mass transfers amounted to retaliation against career staffers who spoke out against his policies, and Zinke himself said publicly he has “30 percent of the crew that’s not loyal to the flag.” The VA moves come at an agency Trump has called a top priority. A bright spot early in the administration, in recent months it has lost dozens of senior leaders who were pushed out or quit in alarm at the chaos in a long bipartisan corner of the government. O’Rourke, a Trump campaign staffer who served as VA’s chief of staff and led a new office designed to protect whistleblowers, was appointed acting secretary after Wilkie, who had served in the role after Shulkin’s firing and the failed nomination of White House physician Ronny L. Jackson, won the nod for permanent secretary. Wilkie returned to his job as head of military personnel at the Defense Department to await confirmation. “Any decisions made following Mr. Wilkie’s departure as acting [secretary] were made by the current VA leadership and Mr. Wilkie was not aware, nor a part of those decisions,” Wilkie spokeswoman Carla Gleason said in an email. A Navy and Air Force veteran, O’Rourke has shown a willingness to exert power in his caretaker role. With his framed photograph now hanging in VA headquarters, he consults regularly with Trump political appointees, excluding career senior leaders from some meetings. He quickly drew criticism from both parties on Capitol Hill for an ongoing dispute with VA’s inspector general, who is seeking records for an investigation of the whistleblower office. The Senate intervened, voting unanimously in June to tell O’Rourke he does not have the right to block the watchdog’s efforts. Mid-level employees who worked for years in VA’s seat of power supporting secretaries and their deputies found themselves called in by O’Rourke’s staff, where they were informed of their departures, according to multiple employees. One was told she needed to find another job in the agency but not offered one. Another, Debi Bevins, whose role as director of client relations ensures emails and phone calls to the secretary’s office receive responses, was moved to another department doing the same job — but she no longer has direct access to the secretary. Tonia Bock, executive secretary to the agency, and her deputy, Jennifer Jessup, who had access to sensitive correspondence with Congress, were also moved. A VA official said Bock’s office “had struggled with tracking and responding to congressional inquiries accurately and in a timely fashion.” A well-regarded staff assistant hired during the Obama administration as a political appointee was fired. So were some staff assistants in the office of Thomas Bowman, the agency’s second-in-command, who was pushed to retire in June after falling from favor at the end of Shulkin’s tenure. The shake-up is now reaching another top Trump appointee, the assistant secretary for operations, security and preparedness who refused to sign a resignation letter O’Rourke’s team gave him after clashing with them and is now negotiating his departure. Don Loren, a retired rear Navy Admiral, had questioned the group’s management style. He also refused to suspend normal security protocol to allow O’Rourke’s wife to bypass building security at VA headquarters, according to someone with knowledge of the matter. He refused a request to move up O’Rourke in the line of succession behind the deputy secretary, this person said. Cashour denied these events happened. At the Veterans Benefits Administration, which has struggled for years to speed up its processing of disability claims, a new team of appointees in charge has transferred at least a half dozen senior career staffers to less prominent roles, some in other cities. The culled leadership positions appear to be part of a restructuring designed to streamline the department, according to an internal memo obtained by disabledveterans.org. The small Center for Women Veterans has been a flash point for loyalty questions. Director Kayla Williams quit last week to take another job after clashes with the Trump administration about making the agency’s mission statement more gender neutral. “As both a veteran and the spouse of a 100 percent disabled combat wounded veteran, I was deeply committed to the VA mission of serving all veterans,” Williams said. However a civil servant on her staff, Danielle Corazza, was fired after sending a tweet from the center’s account that praised the large number of female veterans running for office this year. The tweet linked to an article showing most are Democrats. VA officials said Corazza sent multiple tweets from the account that tracked other campaign successes of women veterans who are Democrats. The senior VA official said the Center for Women Veterans “was recently involved in repeated, clear and unequivocal violations of the Hatch Act” and as a result the agency “is implementing staffing changes” there. Corazza said she never received training in the law, which prohibits on duty political activity. “My training was to post about female veterans, which I did,” she said. Several high level White House staff also have been found in violation of the Hatch Act, although none appear to have been punished. Source | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 19 2018 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote: What are some publications where the editorial staff have significantly different positions/outlooks than the reporting staff? I mean the only thing that comes to mind is the NYT being heralded as a liberal point of light but it's editorials mostly being right of center. I think this idea that the editorial staff is totally different bias than the reporting staff is overplayed. The NYT is the poster child for an editorial team that runs in conflict with the reporting team. That that conflict exists within the paper itself. As someone who subscribes to the Times, I have write them an email about 2-4 times a year telling them their editorial department is terrible and their reporting teams are the only think keeping me from canceling. I get some nice replies and like to feel I helped make sure they didn’t hire that terrible woman who was buddy buddy with a nazi. But it is more common that people think. Reporters don’t like having their stories undercut by skeptical editorials. And editorials writers don’t like that their think pieces get blasted because they have an alternative view to a reporting in the field. On July 19 2018 06:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The loyalty purge has arrived at the VA. We have reached personality cult status it seems like, that and the GOP seem it is going for the full privatization roue of all of the VA under the radar. + Show Spoiler + Ahead of Robert Wilkie’s likely confirmation to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, Trump loyalists at the agency are taking aggressive steps to purge or reassign staff perceived to be disloyal to President Trump and his agenda for veterans, according to multiple people familiar with the moves. The transfers include more than a dozen career civil servants who have been moved from the leadership suite at VA headquarters and reassigned to lower-visibility roles. The employees served agency leaders, some dating back more than two decades, in crucial support roles that help a new secretary. None say they were given reasons for their reassignments. The moves are being carried out by a small cadre of political appointees led by Acting Secretary Peter O’Rourke who have consolidated power in the four months since they helped oust former Secretary David Shulkin. The reshuffling marks a new stage in a long estrangement between civil servants and Trump loyalists at VA, where staff upheaval and sinking morale threatens to derail service to one of the president’s key constituencies, according to current and former employees. Among those reassigned is an experienced scheduler who Wilkie told colleagues he wanted to work for him once he is confirmed by the Senate, according to former and current employees. Other career senior executives with institutional knowledge of VA’s troubled benefits operation also have been sidelined, some to other cities, according to multiple people who asked not to be identified because of the issue’s sensitivity. A high-ranking executive appointed during the Obama administration to a six-year term quit last week after clashing with Trump aides. Even some Trump appointees have been pushed out for challenging the leadership group. VA officials say the reassignments will help their efforts to improve the agency’s overall culture and performance. Still, it is highly unusual for a leader in an acting, caretaker role — which began for O’Rourke on May 30 — to make such dramatic changes before a permanent leader arrives. “Under President Trump, VA won’t wait to take necessary action when it comes to improving the department and its service to Veterans,” spokesman Curt Cashour said in an email. Wilkie, according to Cashour and a spokeswoman for the nominee, has had no hand in the changes as he awaits Senate confirmation. Current and former employees — and now alarmed members of Congress — call the reshuffling a loyalty purge that is targeting the alleged political sympathies of many career civil servants whose jobs are, by definition, nonpartisan. “These are people who served multiple administrations,” said one employee who was moved, “but they only want them to serve the Trump administration. You can’t run a department like that.” At a House hearing on Tuesday, a visibly irritated Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.) pressed O’Rourke to explain why he has “removed, demoted or reassigned” a “significant number of career employees.” O’Rourke called his actions “well-planned and designed moves” to improve “efficiency and effectiveness.” He acknowledged changes were not based on poor performance. He said he is encouraging other VA leaders to follow suit. Esty countered that she suspects “loyalty concerns”are behind the transfers. “To be clearing out that many people during the time of an acting secretary is disturbing,” she said. “You’re going to lose institutional knowledge.” Presidential loyalty also has been a factor in staff changes at other agencies. The State Department sidelined or pushed out dozens of career diplomats who questioned the agency’s diminished role in the Trump administration. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke reassigned dozens of senior executives in two shuffles. Critics said the mass transfers amounted to retaliation against career staffers who spoke out against his policies, and Zinke himself said publicly he has “30 percent of the crew that’s not loyal to the flag.” The VA moves come at an agency Trump has called a top priority. A bright spot early in the administration, in recent months it has lost dozens of senior leaders who were pushed out or quit in alarm at the chaos in a long bipartisan corner of the government. O’Rourke, a Trump campaign staffer who served as VA’s chief of staff and led a new office designed to protect whistleblowers, was appointed acting secretary after Wilkie, who had served in the role after Shulkin’s firing and the failed nomination of White House physician Ronny L. Jackson, won the nod for permanent secretary. Wilkie returned to his job as head of military personnel at the Defense Department to await confirmation. “Any decisions made following Mr. Wilkie’s departure as acting [secretary] were made by the current VA leadership and Mr. Wilkie was not aware, nor a part of those decisions,” Wilkie spokeswoman Carla Gleason said in an email. A Navy and Air Force veteran, O’Rourke has shown a willingness to exert power in his caretaker role. With his framed photograph now hanging in VA headquarters, he consults regularly with Trump political appointees, excluding career senior leaders from some meetings. He quickly drew criticism from both parties on Capitol Hill for an ongoing dispute with VA’s inspector general, who is seeking records for an investigation of the whistleblower office. The Senate intervened, voting unanimously in June to tell O’Rourke he does not have the right to block the watchdog’s efforts. Mid-level employees who worked for years in VA’s seat of power supporting secretaries and their deputies found themselves called in by O’Rourke’s staff, where they were informed of their departures, according to multiple employees. One was told she needed to find another job in the agency but not offered one. Another, Debi Bevins, whose role as director of client relations ensures emails and phone calls to the secretary’s office receive responses, was moved to another department doing the same job — but she no longer has direct access to the secretary. Tonia Bock, executive secretary to the agency, and her deputy, Jennifer Jessup, who had access to sensitive correspondence with Congress, were also moved. A VA official said Bock’s office “had struggled with tracking and responding to congressional inquiries accurately and in a timely fashion.” A well-regarded staff assistant hired during the Obama administration as a political appointee was fired. So were some staff assistants in the office of Thomas Bowman, the agency’s second-in-command, who was pushed to retire in June after falling from favor at the end of Shulkin’s tenure. The shake-up is now reaching another top Trump appointee, the assistant secretary for operations, security and preparedness who refused to sign a resignation letter O’Rourke’s team gave him after clashing with them and is now negotiating his departure. Don Loren, a retired rear Navy Admiral, had questioned the group’s management style. He also refused to suspend normal security protocol to allow O’Rourke’s wife to bypass building security at VA headquarters, according to someone with knowledge of the matter. He refused a request to move up O’Rourke in the line of succession behind the deputy secretary, this person said. Cashour denied these events happened. At the Veterans Benefits Administration, which has struggled for years to speed up its processing of disability claims, a new team of appointees in charge has transferred at least a half dozen senior career staffers to less prominent roles, some in other cities. The culled leadership positions appear to be part of a restructuring designed to streamline the department, according to an internal memo obtained by disabledveterans.org. The small Center for Women Veterans has been a flash point for loyalty questions. Director Kayla Williams quit last week to take another job after clashes with the Trump administration about making the agency’s mission statement more gender neutral. “As both a veteran and the spouse of a 100 percent disabled combat wounded veteran, I was deeply committed to the VA mission of serving all veterans,” Williams said. However a civil servant on her staff, Danielle Corazza, was fired after sending a tweet from the center’s account that praised the large number of female veterans running for office this year. The tweet linked to an article showing most are Democrats. VA officials said Corazza sent multiple tweets from the account that tracked other campaign successes of women veterans who are Democrats. The senior VA official said the Center for Women Veterans “was recently involved in repeated, clear and unequivocal violations of the Hatch Act” and as a result the agency “is implementing staffing changes” there. Corazza said she never received training in the law, which prohibits on duty political activity. “My training was to post about female veterans, which I did,” she said. Several high level White House staff also have been found in violation of the Hatch Act, although none appear to have been punished. Source Democrats need to run on this and the word out to the public about what is going on. There are few things less popular that privatizing the VA and Vets the idea. If they want to attack Republicans on supporting the military without having to agree to huge military budget increases, this is how Democrats get those votes. | ||
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On July 19 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote: Sanders said that when Trump said "no" in response to the question about whether Russia was still attacking us (contradicting his own intelligence officials), that he was actually saying "no, no more questions." Ofc this ignores the fact he took another question after that. It's as blatant of lying as the "Kelly was mad about the breakfast" BS last week. That woman is a national disgrace. Let's agree that it was fake news and Trump was right from the beginning. It's just media... fucking media. :D | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States22722 Posts
On July 19 2018 06:04 Plansix wrote: The NYT is the poster child for an editorial team that runs in conflict with the reporting team. That that conflict exists within the paper itself. As someone who subscribes to the Times, I have write them an email about 2-4 times a year telling them their editorial department is terrible and their reporting teams are the only think keeping me from canceling. I get some nice replies and like to feel I helped make sure they didn’t hire that terrible woman who was buddy buddy with a nazi. But it is more common that people think. Reporters don’t like having their stories undercut by skeptical editorials. And editorials writers don’t like that their think pieces get blasted because they have an alternative view to a reporting in the field. I think the NYT makes my own point if that's poster child for the chasm between editorial and reporting staff. The editorial staff are just free to be more right wing than the reporters who are supposed to be "unbiased" and focus on the facts. also this On July 19 2018 06:11 Grumbels wrote: @plansix, I’ll just say that there is a difference between an editorial board with the specific task of writing opinion pieces, the editorial stance of a newspaper’s reporting, and the degree to which reporting is editorialized. I was tslking about the last two, whereas you seem to be talking about the first one. | ||
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2615 Posts
On July 19 2018 05:47 Plansix wrote: All news is biased, that is the nature of reporting. But these websites have made this myth about being neutral to protect themselves from having to give a shit about what claims to be news on their site. And they do so with a lot of legal protection from laws written in the 1990s. They should just grow up and get an editorial staff, or verify what they want to label as news, rather than pumping this myth that software will somehow remove human bias from the equation. I forgot he gave up his citizenship to avoid US taxes. Not a great look, but we shouldn't even be talking about that with Putin. He is the reason we know about the depth of Russia's abuse of their own citizens and why we sanctioned them. What is even nuttier than the demand for Browder (who isn't even a US citizen any more lol) is the demand for former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. This is crazy. McFaul was a Senate-confirmed US Ambassador who the Russians are now demanding be handed over for completely made-up financial crimes. (Seriously, the Russians claimed McFaul helped Browder steal over 400 million dollars out of Russia.) The only response from the WH to this kind of nonsense should be an unequivocal "NO." Instead, the WH has said that they are considering Putin's request for McFaul and Browder. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 19 2018 05:47 Grumbels wrote: I followed journalists and they would link articles they agreed with. I don’t really see the distinction between news and editorials at that point, since it is in the context of these people on twitter who have their own biases in how they frame articles and what they select from it. And frankly, I don’t want to consume “raw news”, I think that is for academics or enthusiasts. I can be informed by editorials even if the author has their own bias. I agree there's not so much news/editorial distinction if you're gettin gstuff in that way. how do you account for reporting bias affecting your understanding of the world then? using a mix of journalists you follow? have you ever tried consuming "raw news"? | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 19 2018 06:11 Grumbels wrote: @plansix, I’ll just say that there is a difference between an editorial board with the specific task of writing opinion pieces, the editorial stance of a newspaper’s reporting, and the degree to which reporting is editorialized. I was tslking about the last two, whereas you seem to be talking about the first one. Bias in reporting, or editorializing if you prefer, is just part of the reporting process. All reporters have to decide which information is relevant and which isn’t. All they can be is transparent about the nature of the article they are writing. The burden is on us, the reader, to make ourselves better informed by reading up on a subject, rather than just trusting one news source. We need to discard the term “unbiased” because it is a fiction. No outlet is unbiased. They just try to report on the news that they feel is relevant and be honest about what point of view the reporting is presenting. On July 19 2018 06:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote: What is even nuttier than the demand for Browder (who isn't even a US citizen any more lol) is the demand for former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. This is crazy. McFaul was a Senate-confirmed US Ambassador who the Russians are now demanding be handed over for completely made-up financial crimes. (Seriously, the Russians claimed McFaul helped Browder steal over 400 million dollars out of Russia.) The only response from the WH to this kind of nonsense should be an unequivocal "NO." Instead, the WH has said that they are considering Putin's request for McFaul and Browder. Russia flagged Bill Browder with an false Interpol warrant, which froze his passport. If the US hadn’t stepped in, he might have been in some real shit. If forget if he was traveling at the time, but I would be scared shitless. They tortured his lawyer to death, for those who are not aware. This is the clearest example of Trump’s inability to resist the flattery of strong men like Putin. He is in love with the concept of these dictators and takes them at face value. It is insanely dangerous given the power of the executive branch and how toothless congress is. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On July 19 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote: Sanders said that when Trump said "no" in response to the question about whether Russia was still attacking us (contradicting his own intelligence officials), that he was actually saying "no, no more questions." Ofc this ignores the fact he took another question after that. It's as blatant of lying as the "Kelly was mad about the breakfast" BS last week. That woman is a national disgrace. Out of curiousity, how is Sanders viewed on the right? I never hear much about SHS so I genuinely don't know if they talk about her much or what they say. | ||
| ||