Wednesday, November 25, 2020

A More Likely Theft

 I don't know anything much about election software and various voting methods.  I can see how mail-in voting could make their security more vulnerable, starting with a family member pressuring someone to vote a certain way, or just taking their ballot and filling it out. But I don't know what kind of numbers are likely, or even possible, from such a problem.  There are also potential irregularities that very quickly went beyond the reach of identifying, as ballots all got put into the same pile when they might have been separate. I believe it possible that Kerry stole Wisconsin in 2004, because it looks like enough votes could have been moved.

Apparently over 90% of people who voted for Trump believe that enough was wrong with enough physical votes in the recent election that whole states were flipped, costing him the election. I acknowledge that such a thing might be, but I have yet to see sufficient evidence that this actually did happen.  Vulnerability and bad motives are not enough to convince me.

I was already composing my own post in my head about where I thought the election really was stolen, and then saw this article, where someone has done the work for me. There may be flaws in the research, but I think the general principle holds. The election was stolen month after month by the suppression of news.  This is something I do understand - understand more than the vulnerabilities of Dominion, anyway. 

I firmly believe that if Biden had to expose himself to reporters with video cameras who kept asking "Did the Chinese send you $10M through your son Hunter, or did that check go to someone else?" then he would not be president-elect. He has not been able to give a decent explanation for any of his son's behavior, and this would have been apparent. If he said he didn't really know about Hunter's doings, then followup questions about investigations would be in order, and he would have had to commit, to make promises. People would start looking into the issues on their own, seeking out the stories to see if they thought they were reliable. It would have become part of the national discussion with even a minimum of acknowledgement from legacy media.  The Streisand Effect may have worked to activate conservatives and bring in a lot of clicks, but I don't see evidence that half the country even heard more than a whisper of it. It was effectively buried. Americans love the myth that the truth eventually comes out, but it doesn't. It doesn't take much examination of any era in our history - including those in our lifetimes - to see that many questions no longer have an answer. The witnesses are gone or defanged, the documents are shredded, a replacement belief has been installed.

And that is only one issue.

More to the point, this is something we can still affect going forward. Outlets like The Washington Post and the New York Times have become diminished over the last few decades, but they and the further outlets they supply retain considerable influence over a large number of Americans who are under the false impression that they are receiving the news.  They are receiving a portion of the news, often in manipulative language.  It is a mutually-reinforcing system certainly, in that this is the news that audience would prefer to hear, and thus calls it forth from the newspapers, which in turn provide the service to their readers of letting them know what the best people think about all this. Repeated exposure of their dishonesty has not had near the effect on their audience that one would expect.

Yet not zero effect. They have required enormous support from the censorship of the new social media platforms to keep them propped up. If you lean on a stone wall long enough, it will fall over. Keep leaning.

Update:  It may be that Trumpism - admittedly an ill-defined term - has succeeded more than Trump himself.  At a minimum, I would say this is an America First baseline approach and a refusal to go along with the media putting the worst possible spin on everything you say.

53 comments:

dmoelling said...

Years ago I got home delivery of our local paper (The Hartford Courant) and the NY Times. I've been a republican all my life and so is my wife but the political bent of these papers was still mostly on the editorial pages. Around the GW Bush presidency the anti-bush, pro-environment, pro-any far left cause got so bad that it was in every part of the newspaper. So I dumped my subscriptions. Not just because they were politically left but that they got uninteresting. If a reporter can't take pride in finding things out and getting the scoop but only in being a good party member, all the life goes out.

On COVID my wife is the worrywart of the family, but she noticed that the press were unenthusiastic about reports of progress in treatments and vaccines. I had kept up to date on these via reputable public sources. The progress was amazing compared to past efforts. She asked me why wasn't this more publicly known. The only answer was politics.

Christopher B said...

For all the noise about whether he got 70 million or 80 million votes, or how the guy with no campaign or ground game managed to win 10 million more votes than the first appearance of the Lightbringer, the election really came down to about

10K votes in AZ
13K votes in GA
20K votes in WI
33K votes in NV

or substitute 81K votes in PA for any 2 of AZ, NV, or WI

Losing by less in CA or NY, or winning by more in TX or KY, would have made no practical difference. It didn't take millions of votes. Swing less than one hundred thousand votes in states where he was already doing well and Trump would have won the Electoral College again.

Glenn Reynolds likes to say that Trump is a symptom, not a cause. The geopolitics unleashed by the collapse of the USSR have taken a while to work their way down to the retail level in the U.S. but the effect is not going away just because one guy had an election stolen.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

@ Christopher B - and I contend at least that many votes swing with simply reporting the events that actually happened, regardless of the spin put on them (though the spin has its effect as well).

The coalition of the unhappy and resentful frayed because of the improved economy for the bottom 80% of the population, including especially Hispanics.

Christopher B said...

The non-reporting theory is far more likely to have influenced the outcome than following the Dominion/Smartmatic rabbit hole.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Conservatives have displayed for decades a remarkable ability to get the basic idea right but choose terrible examples and hills to die on. There must be some underlying cause of personality, style of argument, presuppositions...I don't know what. But it keeps happening and happening.

It may just be that "foxhole friend" phenomenon. I have written about it a half-dozen times, that people show their loyalty to any cause, left or right, by standing firm even when the evidence against you. But it was covered much better in Scott Alexander's essay over at Slate Star Codex, which I linked in this post. The link is still good, BTW. https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2018/10/false-alarm.html

Zachriel said...

Assistant Village Idiot: A More Likely Theft ... The election was stolen month after month by the suppression of news.

While there are valid criticisms of the media, not sure how the media exercising their First Amendment rights could be considered stealing an election. There are plenty of alternative news sources.

Regardless, the mainstream media didn't cover many of the allegations promulgated on the right because they couldn't uncover any independent evidence. Trumpism started with birtherism and is ending with electionism.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Yes, we all remember the banner headlines in the papers about the unemployment rate, and how the networks would lead with record-setting minority employment and income. The Washington Post and the NYT just couldn't stop talking about the ME peace deals and the lack of wars. And they've never run any stories against Trump on evidence as flimsy as the information on his actual laptop. Sure. There was never any independent evidence for any of those things.

One could find some of them duly reported but buried, but that's still suppression, just a very clever form of it. The First Amendment has nothing to do with it. It's not illegal to report about the plight of the star-nosed mole on the day Pearl Harbor is bombed, but anyone can see that something is being suppressed. They did not do the job they claim they did, and calling them out on it is reasonable.

Zachriel said...

Assistant Village Idiot: record-setting minority employment

Note that the decline in black unemployment was roughly linear starting in Obama's second year and continuing until the dramatic worsening at the end of the Trump administration.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=y7W8

From the Washington Post, 9/9/2019: For the First Time Ever Most New Working Age Hires in the U.S. are People of Color.

Assistant Village Idiot: And they've never run any stories against Trump on evidence as flimsy as the information on his actual laptop.

The FBI has had the laptop for a year, and have yet to press charges. While Hunter Biden apparently traded on his name, that is not illegal in and of itself.

Assistant Village Idiot: The First Amendment has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. The First Amendment protects the right of the press to report on the plight of the star-nosed mole on the day Pearl Harbor is bombed. They can be as biased as they want to be, and you can call them out for their bias. That's exactly what freedom of the press means. That there are a multiplicity of other sources besides the Journal of Mammalogy means that you can be as informed or uninformed as you like.

Assistant Village Idiot: They did not do the job they claim they did, and calling them out on it is reasonable.

Sure. You can certainly decry the state of the mainstream media, but that doesn't translate into stealing the election.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Paragraph 1 - Changing the subject 10-50%. I have mentioned this to you repeatedly. I don't know if it's a tactic or you can't help it, but it is not logical.
Paragraph 2 - Yes, dutifully reported, but de-emphasised. Like I said.
Paragraph 3 - Changing the subject. Charges and illegality are not the only thing that make it a story
Paragraph 4 - That's what I said. Except that I added in the part about doing what they claimed to do.
Paragraph 5 - Of course it does. If teachers don't teach, they have stolen education. If doctors don't treat, they steal health. If preachers don't preach, they have stolen from the Gospel. If musicians do not play they have stolen from the audience.

Zachriel said...

Assistant Village Idiot: Paragraph 1 - Changing the subject 10-50%.

You made a claim about minority unemployment, so the context is important to its newsworthiness. A trend over eight years is much less significant than if it was some significant change in trajectory. Speaking of which ...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=y7W8

Assistant Village Idiot: Paragraph 2 - Yes, dutifully reported, but de-emphasised.

So, by not providing what you think should be appropriate prominence to a story, it's "theft."

Assistant Village Idiot: Paragraph 3 - Changing the subject. Charges and illegality are not the only thing that make it a story

No. There are a number of implausible or nebulous aspects to the story. The media have already reported about Hunter Biden, but without evidence of illegality, there's little to report until or if the FBI takes action.

Assistant Village Idiot: Paragraph 4 - That's what I said. Except that I added in the part about doing what they claimed to do.

Sure, and Fox News is "fair and balanced." So? Again, that doesn't make it theft.

Assistant Village Idiot: Paragraph 5 - Of course it does {makes it election theft}. If teachers don't teach, they have stolen education. If doctors don't treat, they steal health. If preachers don't preach, they have stolen from the Gospel. If musicians do not play they have stolen from the audience.

You aren't being forced to buy their newspapers. At most you paid $2 to read about star-nosed mole in the Washington Post, which is a lot less than the Journal of Mammalogy. Buy Fox News or whatever. That doesn't make it theft of the election, which is what you claimed in your original post.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I am entirely content here

Liza said...

Longtime Lurker here...

You frequently say that you don't watch TV or always keep up with what's in the newspapers, and you just recently posted that you rely on other people to tell you if something is really important in current events.

And yet, you are writing confidently that the MSM never covered these events. How would you even know? Because alternative sites and blogs/friends tell you that it is so?

That isn't evidence of your premise. It's a repetition of what right-leaning sites and their readers say.

Thos. said...

the ZachBot: because they couldn't uncover any independent evidence.

The media's effort to "investigate" any story that might have thrown shade on Biden is strongly reminiscent of a racist, jim-crow-era sheriff investigating (without so much as leaving his seat at the counter of the local diner) a lynching by the KKK: "I ain't aware of no evidence of wrong-doins, no how."

It's an especially apt comparison, because the sheriff was a democrat, too.

And the Zack-puppet's parroting of the official line echoes the way the local PTA president would hush any concerns that came to her attention: "Well now, all-y'all can see that the sheriff himself has assured us that there is nothing to be concerned about ... bless your hearts."

Now that the Zach-in-the-box has set us straight, his handlers would appreciate it if everyone would just Shut The EFF Up and let them get back to the regular programming.

Sam L. said...

I despise, detest, and totally distrust the media. I don't know if it/they are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Dem Party, or if it's the other way round, but it's OBVIOUS that they are in cahoots.

Sam L. said...

I remember Zach from some years back, at Maggie's Farm, IIRC.

Sam L. said...

AVI, you have my sympathy.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

@ Liza - that is at least a partly-fair comment. I do think of that from time to time and make an effort to follow mainstream outlets for a few days a month. I also become aware of what they are and are not covering because of the spillover effects when I click over to an article on their sites and see what they are hitting hard in the sidebar - and what they are not. Other sites, such as Bing and Google, put up what they think are the news, and I am sometimes concerned by what I do not see.

The right-leaning sites do curate this type of knowledge to their own advantage, certainly. But the claims are sometimes specific, noting that named outlets are not covering a story in any way, or contrasting that it is covered up front in the Wall Street Journal but not on the front page anywhere in the Post. I usually take them at their word, and when I have had to dig deeper on a subject and go over to those sites it has been as advertised. I would see several local papers at work, and never found counterexamples from what had been asserted on the right-leaning sites. I have found WSJ to be very reliable and unbiased. I would note with a wry smile that they are therefore considered center-right.

And some right-leaning sites are not friendly to Trump.

I continue with the shortcut of believing them on that score because they have proved reliable. Where they are unreliable is in reporting news events of their own that turn out to be rumor, exaggerations, or misunderstandings.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

@ Sam L - the cleanest explanation is that they are giving their audience what they want to hear, because they intuitively understand that and even know how to lead it, somewhat. I think wokeness and cancel culture caught them by surprise and they expected they could at least give lip service to free speech for others, but that is eroding rapidly.

RichardJohnson said...

Liza
And yet, you are writing confidently that the MSM never covered these events. How would you even know? Because alternative sites and blogs/friends tell you that it is so?

Go to "this link," if you dare.

Even more Biden voters (45.1%) said they were unaware of the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son, Hunter (a story infamously censored by Twitter and Facebook, as well as ignored by the liberal media). According to our poll, full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the President 311 electoral votes

My reply to you is that 45% of Biden voters not being aware of the Hunter Biden scandal is rather good evidence that the MSM has not been covering the events. Twitter blocked NY Post reporting on the Hunter Biden scandal: is that not not evidence that the MSM blocked news of the Hunter Biden scandal?

Judging from the Facebook comments of some yellow dog Democrat relatives, to the extent that the MSM covered Hunter Biden's laptop, it was to shout that it was "fake news."

That isn't evidence of your premise. It's a repetition of what right-leaning sites and their readers say.

So it's my lying eyes that say that Twitter blocked comments about NY Post articles on Hunter Biden?

What evidence can YOU provide that the MSM fairly and comprehensively covered the Hunter Biden laptop issue? Inquiring minds want to know.
Andate, Liza.

RichardJohnson said...

For Liza, from Neo's blog.
I propose a deprogramming challenge for the left.

Leftists would like to deprogram the right and get us out of our bubble of misinformation and into the light and the fresh air of leftist truth...


So, here’s my proposal to the left (a proposal they won’t accept): let’s take an equal number of people on right and left. Expose the ones on the right to a bunch of news stories from CNN an MSNBC as well as NPR, and have them read a series of articles in the
NY Times and The New Yorker and The Nation. Then have some leftists and liberals watch Tucker Carlson or listen to Larry Elder or watch some John Anderson interviews on YouTube of figures on the right, read some pieces from The Federalist or City Journal, and throw in some Victor Davis Hanson and Thomas Sowell along the way.

I predict that you’d have a lot more Democrats leaving the fold than Republicans.

Zachriel said...

Thos: The media's effort to "investigate" any story that might have thrown shade on Biden is strongly reminiscent of a racist, jim-crow-era sheriff investigating ...

Except that the "jim-crow-era sheriff" was under the color of law.

In fact, reporters have looked at the Biden affair. There's problems with the story. But reporters are competitive, and if something turns up, most would be happy to report on new and relevant findings.

Zachriel said...

RichardJohnson: My reply to you is that 45% of Biden voters not being aware of the Hunter Biden scandal is rather good evidence that the MSM has not been covering the events.

Most people don't follow the news that closely. And even when they do, they can often be misinformed. For instance, most Republicans don't think Biden won the election.

RichardJohnson: What evidence can YOU provide that the MSM fairly and comprehensively covered the Hunter Biden laptop issue?

Why should they? It's a second tier story at best.

Zachriel said...

Sam L: I despise, detest, and totally distrust the media.

That is a defensible statement.

Assistant Village Idiot: The election was stolen month after month by the suppression of news.

This statement would be defensible only if there was a single source for news, such as where the government controls the media. Instead, there are a wide variety of sources. In a free society, newspapers can be as biased as they want to be. Most people, especially on the right, prefer to get their news from inside a narrow silo.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

"This statement would be defensible only if there was a single source for news, such as where the government controls the media. Instead, there are a wide variety of sources. In a free society, newspapers can be as biased as they want to be. Most people, especially on the right, prefer to get their news from inside a narrow silo."

Sounds like you are agreeing with the premise that the liberal slant is ubiquitous and fairly inescapable, while the conservative slant is less well-known. One version shows up without question in fashion magazines, sports sites, movie reviews, and travel writing. This is because journalists of all types know that this is what The Lodge believes. People who share those beliefs are more likely to go into the field of writing for the public for that reason, in the same way that top students who are not liberal tend to stay away from academia unless they deeply love teaching or can find a research slot out of the line of fire. They go work for someone else. The schools become more liberal, and this is self-reinforcing.

Your point that it's a free market and people can print what they want is only partly true, Zachriel, but you keep clinging to it tenaciously, because your point of view depends on that myth so fully. At the most cynical level, even the food writers at the NYT will be quickly out of work and unable to find comparable employment elsewhere if they start making pro-Trump comments, even in passing. See also: late-night TV. There is considerable institutional inertia in media, even as there is turnover and new sources. The new sources from 1990-2010 included a fair number of conservative points of view. The social media sources are unrestrainedly liberal, however, and that has swung the pendulum of news availability back the other way - I hope only temporarily. Those sources actively suppressed the Biden story, to take only the recent and most egregious example. Even a second-tier story (which this assuredly is not. If it is true it is enormous.) would get second-tier attention. Even things that only looked suspicious would get some attention, rather than none. An honest journalist could indeed break the story and be a hero to at least half the country - and then never work again in a comparable position. This on top of the fact that the great percentage of them, around 90%, want a certain set of answers to be true to begin with.

Look what happened to the science editors at the NYT, Nicholas Wade and John Tierney. Certain facts are not allowed to be uttered. If you say them aloud, to the outer darkness you go. Being very liberal in other things, like Razhib Khan, will not save you.

The journey out of liberalism is a deeply personal one, as people have to give up not only a large portion of their friends and even family, but their self-image, and sometimes even their profession, or hope for advancement in it. This is also true of conservatism, especially religious conservatism, but far less so. It's just nowhere near as expensive to do that. The difficulty is that one must look reality square in the face.

Your theory looks plausible and is how journalism is supposed to work. Why then, does it not follow the pattern you believe it should? The post I put up three weeks ago about the control of media and the popular conversation still applies. https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2020/11/update-on-cultural-and-political.html

And there are even darker forces, of woke staffers attempting to control content, as with the recent Jordan Peterson book, or the daily isolated incidents we see coming out of the colleges, which in aggregate are frightening. It is difficult to build a new college or new network from scratch, and more difficult still to make a name.

BTW I thought Liza's question reasonable, and should be answered reasonably. On the surface, it does indeed look like that would be a serious problem. Only by digging deeper does one see that it doesn't quite hold.

Zachriel said...

Assistant Village Idiot: Sounds like you are agreeing with the premise that the liberal slant is ubiquitous and fairly inescapable,

Rather, even granting media bias arguendo, your argument fails.

Assistant Village Idiot: while the conservative slant is less well-known.

Sure. And Fox News is "Fair and Balanced."

Assistant Village Idiot: This is because journalists of all types know that this is what The Lodge believes.

The main bias in media is corporate and immediacy. People who consider journalism a mission are more likely to become journalists, and just as often disappointed.

Assistant Village Idiot: At the most cynical level, even the food writers at the NYT will be quickly out of work and unable to find comparable employment elsewhere if they start making pro-Trump comments, even in passing.

Apparently you haven't heard of conservative welfare, which includes high-paying jobs at Fox News, think tanks, and book publishing.

Assistant Village Idiot: Even a second-tier story ... would get second-tier attention.

The Hunter Biden story has been published in most major media. It's getting about the same play as Watergate did at first — which is not much.

Assistant Village Idiot: (which this assuredly is not. If it is true it is enormous.)

And if the moon were made of green cheese, it would be an enormous discovery. You need evidence to support such a claim, or it's just words.

Assistant Village Idiot: This on top of the fact that the great percentage of them, around 90%, want a certain set of answers to be true to begin with.

That would be about 90% of all people. Consider this very thread, and how you defend a statement which is virtually self-refuting.

Assistant Village Idiot: Look what happened to the science editors at the NYT, Nicholas Wade and John Tierney.

Sure. They sell books to the people who "want a certain set of answers to be true to begin with." They don't have a right to a job at the New York Times. Something, Constitution, something.

Assistant Village Idiot: Why then, does it not follow the pattern you believe it should?

Again, Sam L.'s statement, "I despise, detest, and totally distrust the media," is defensible. Your claim, on the other hand, concerns stealing the election. We have not argued that the press is not subject to criticism. For instance, the media loved reporting on Trump. It took no effort and sold lots of papers. It led to the rise of Trumpism, birtherism, and the election of Trump. But the media didn't "steal" the election for Trump. They failed to properly cover the issues, but what else is new.


Liza said...

AVI.....Re: Getting sense of things from Google and Bing searches and featured stories

Unfortunately, this is not necessarily a trustworthy metric.

Unless you are using an anonymized browser/service with no cookies...almost everything you and I encounter is slanted to our already pre-existing biases. Our data is sifted and crunched so much, that Google, YouTube, etc. don't show us the same results and links as someone else, even if we use the same exact search terms. There can be some overlap...but everything from the order of links, the sites Google choose to prioritize for you, and the ads you see are informed by your internet habits not only on Google but on all its affiliated sites and sites using its ad services...including this blog and all blogspot blogs.

Liza said...

Richard Johnson...You and Neo assume too much. Of course, all people think that if someone from "the other side" would just listen to them, they would see the error of the ways and switch sides. It ain't so. Additionally, it seems to take for granted that most people would naturally lean towards those brands of conservatism as if that is the default view of the world. It isn't.

I have read and watched those sites/programs and find them full of dishonesty and bad faith, especially Tucker Carlson. I assume you know that a plaintiff lost a lawsuit against Tucker Carlson's defamation in court because FoxNews declared that it was obvious that Tucker is not news and that his opinions should be viewed with skepticism and no one would reasonably believe them. The judge agreed. So, of what worth is his opinion when searching for actual facts and truth?

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Liza, then those pre-existing biases would show me unrelenting conservative stories and viewpoints, instead of the unrelenting liberal ones I see. You actually just gave me ammunition. In spite of my conservative bias that the algorithm is expected to pick up, the entire pool is so saturated with liberal POV's - see my comments about fashion, sports, movie, and food journalists - that it can't find enough to show them to me.

I know nothing about Fox. I never go there and don't know who is on it. I did read years ago at the Volokh Conspiracy that a UCLA researcher tracked what sources the various networks quoted and decided that WSJ was most even-handed, Fox was slightly rightish, and the other networks quoted only liberal sources. Whether that study has been discredited (and I am sure people put a lot of effort into trying) I don't know. But I don't accept the premise that Fox must be ridiculously and unfairly right-wing just because they are farther right than MSNBC.

I may be deluding myself on how objective I am, but I am at least trying to look at other possibilities. Thus far, you have not shown me the same courtesy.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Note: I use DuckDuckGo. I have a second browser that holds my fantasy football teams and ESPN link (and used to have automatic tabs for my sons' twitter accounts, which I removed in my complete boycott of them*) which uses Bing as a default search engine. I have not bothered to change it, and so get Bing and its clickbait up whenever I search from there. I also go to YouTube, which similarly follows what one has liked before. If Bing is curating the net to show me what I want, and YouTube is similarly designed to move in Bayesian fashion toward my preferences, then it must have started from what I would regard as an immensely liberal default. Neither of those shows me anything in the least conservative, or even centrist.

*Twitter, not the sons.

RichardJohnson said...

Liza
You and Neo assume too much. Of course, all people think that if someone from "the other side" would just listen to them, they would see the error of the ways and switch sides.

To insure that others wouldn't get the chance to listen to "the other side," Twitter blocked comments on the NY Post article on Hunter Biden's laptop.(After several weeks of negative feedback, including a session in front of Congress, Twitter's head backed down and permitted comments on the article.) Which I pointed out, and which you pointedly ignored.

Perhaps Neo and I are mistaken in believing that "I predict that you’d have a lot more Democrats leaving the fold than Republicans" were each side to read the media of the other. My suggestion is to put it to the test. Your claim that those on the right are not cognizant of what the MSM publishes is, for the most part, incorrect. Recall Haidt's - note that Haidt is a liberal- finding that conservatives did a better job of stating liberal positions than liberals did of stating conservative positions. I have read a lot of WaPo and NYT articles over the years. I have noticed that when the WaPo and NYT have published articles on subjects that I know fairly well, I can readily refute the articles' claims or implications.


Liza said...

Richard

Your claim that those on the right are not cognizant of what the MSM publishes is, for the most part, incorrect.

I made no such claim anywhere. I did specifically talk to AVI about his individual habits based on his own previous disclosures which he admitted had some truth.

Twitter is not mainstream media or journalism....it is social media.

Also, you approached this conversation in an immediately aggressive and snarky way. I don't have to engage with every comment you make or meet your demands just because you think I should.

I can ask pointed questions too. How many Trump supporters care that Trump, by constantly going to his resorts, forces the government to pay his own businesses golf cart fees, room rates, food charges and other fees? Presidents going anywhere always costs money, but presidents going to their own resorts directly puts money in their pockets. This is the type of thing that causes local and state politicians to be dismissed or resign in scandal.

How many Trump supporters so concerned about Hunter Biden trading on his name don't seem to care that all of Trump's children are trading on his?

The RNC purchased Don Jr's book when it came out to the tune of $94,500.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/22/republicans-bulk-bought-donald-trump-jr-triggered-book
Is that a thing political parties should be doing? Probably not.

Additionally, he is making a pretty penny with his political speeches.

Are those things illegal? No, but they are in the same category as making money off of a parent's name. This concern over Hunter would perhaps be taken more seriously if it wasn't coming from people who regularly ignore and excuse the nepotism in the current White House and Trump's direct connections and involvement with his adult children's activities.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Liza, Trump has lost a fortune by being president. He intentionally cancelled a meeting with foreign leaders at his resort because of the optics and the decried supposed benefit he got. His businesses are in trust and without his persona to sell their experience, they have been devastated. Didn't know that? Too busy reading the Guardian about the RNC buying books. Be suspicious.

Now do Obama and Martha's Vineyard. The Clintons and just about everywhere. You are talking about chicken feed in comparison. Arithmetic. Orders of magnitude.

Yes, Richard was snarky, and I think I hinted at a caution. It wasn't that bad, however.

RichardJohnson said...

AVI:
I firmly believe that if Biden had to expose himself to reporters with video cameras who kept asking "Did the Chinese send you $10M through your son Hunter, or did that check go to someone else?" then he would not be president-elect. He has not been able to give a decent explanation for any of his son's behavior, and this would have been apparent. If he said he didn't really know about Hunter's doings, then followup questions about investigations would be in order, and he would have had to commit, to make promises..

Liza:
And yet, you are writing confidently that the MSM never covered these events. How would you even know? Because alternative sites and blogs/friends tell you that it is so?And yet, you are writing confidently that the MSM never covered these events. How would you even know? Because alternative sites and blogs/friends tell you that it is so?


Myself:
Liza, please inform us - recall the who what where why when (how) we learned in junior high- of MSM journalists asking Joe Biden questions about Hunter's laptop and the Chinese gold- and how journalists held Joe Biden's feet to the fire if he tried to avoid those questions. Inquiring minds want to know (As far as I know, when MSM journalists ventured questions on Hunter and the laptop, Joe dismissed such questions as "smears," and MSM journalists did not pursue further. Lapdog MSM on the laptop.)

I previously pointed that AVI's link informed us that 45% of Biden voters had not been aware of the Hunter Biden laptop issue. To me that is a good indication that the MSM had not been doing good coverage of the issue. Which debunks your question to AVI. You didn't reply to my comment. So you get snark. I would add that your reply to my Neo link had a bit of snark, also.


Liza:
The RNC purchased Don Jr's book when it came out to the tune of $94,500.
Conclusion: Don Jr. is a piker compared to what Hunter Biden has apparently grifted. Not to mention the other Democrat pols that AVI brought up. Doesn't exactly help your argument, does it? Snark,snark, snark.

Twitter is not mainstream media or journalism....it is social media.
Pettifoggery. Some people use Twitter for news sources, and for weeks Twitter blocked the NY Post article on Hunter's laptop.


Yes, I did make an expansion from your view of AVI's use of information sources to my alleging that you had a similar view of millions of individuals' use of information sources. My expansion may have been incorrect, but it wasn't as unreasonable an expansion as you claim.

I am finished. I would add that my political changes came from comparing my previous assumptions to what I had observed in the world, and adjusting accordingly. There was one book I read that affected me, but only because its observations were congruent with how observations of the world changed my views. It wasn't that the book changed my views, but that the book confirmed my change of views. None of my political changes came from reading blog comments. As such, I am probably wasting my time in writing this comment.

Christopher B said...

As I recall Twitter didn't just block other people from sharing the NY Post stories. They also locked the NY Post's *corporate account* with the demand that tweets referencing the laptop stories the paper itself published be deleted.

Liza said...

AVI

"Trump has lost a fortune by being president."

Two things about this:

1. How do we know this? Because Trump says it's true? Trump makes many claims about his finances, yet neglects to back them up with anything other than his word. He expects everyone to believe it just because he said it, but Trump has proven himself over and over again not to be trustworthy or honest when it come to his finances. Remember those promises to release his tax returns before he was even elected? Yeah..that never materialized. On the one hand, Trump brags about his wealth, on the other he says he's losing money. He plays whichever angle suits him at the time.


2. Seriously, even if that were true, who cares? Being president is supposed to be an all-consuming position, and the person seeking to be president is supposed to be focused on that job and want it. When has anyone pitied any other president and the opportunity costs that have been lost when those presidents have been elected? It's never happened. And, it would have been harshly ridiculed if any president in office complained about what they were giving up to be there. Reflecting on the challenges of the job comes in memoirs and interviews after presidents leave the office. No one should feel sorry for Trump in this respect. He should have "considered the cost" if he thought it was too much.

"He intentionally cancelled a meeting with foreign leaders at his resort because of the optics and the decried supposed benefit he got."

He was the one who suggested the meeting at his resort, and he wasn't offering it for free. He only canceled because of the pressure from others who rightly pointed out that it was inappropriate. He doesn't get credit for canceling his own very bad idea.


"His businesses are in trust and without his persona to sell their experience, they have been devastated"

We still can't definitively say that's true:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/09/11/trumps-businesses-raked-in-19-billion-of-revenue-during-his-first-three-years-in-office/?sh=15a3648a1e13

And, for argument's sake, if it is true, they can join the list of his many other businesses that have failed all without him being president. It's not as if he hasn't had a lot of his ventures end in failure. Tying this to his presidency might be more persuasive if his business background and success rate were spotless instead of littered with mistakes.

Many of his ventures have never turned a profit, such as his European golf courses which weren't doing well before he was running for president.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-scotland-golf-course-loses-1-million-a-year-and-locals-hate-it-2019-3

"You are talking about chicken feed in comparison. Arithmetic. Orders of magnitude."

What difference does "orders of magnitude" make? People either believe that this behavior is wrong, or they don't think it's a big deal. We can't have it both ways. These are just ways to rationalize the same core behavior that people say they are upset about with Hunter Biden

However, there is one big difference between Hunter and Ivanka/Don/Eric/Jared etc.

Hunter Biden is not involved in the Democratic party, policy, administration, the campaign, or anything else related to Biden's future presidency unlike the Trump children who are completely entangled with the Republican party and the Trump administration....some of the same Trump children who are supposed to be overseeing that "trust" of Trump businesses that Trump is not supposed to be involved with.

Joe Biden has admitted that Hunter has a troubled past. Hunter Biden, himself, has admitted he should have used better judgement and avoided certain actions. Have any of the Trumps ever done the same? Have there been any concessions from Trump or his children about their actions? I think not.

Excuses will be made for the Trumps while none will ever be enough for the Bidens.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Liza, you make reasonable comebacks, but I think most of them are answerable, or can at least be mitigated. However, I am not going to answer them, because you are pretty clearly not discussing the issue, but taking a side and not dealing with the parts you don't like. I asked last time for a courtesy that you have not granted. Your initial question sounded like one who was raising an objection to be discussed, and I answered in that spirit. You have revealed yourself to be a mere partisan looking for advantage. The topic of the post was media bias, and that Trump has not gotten a fair shake while Biden has been covered for. You closed by writing "Excuses will be made for the Trumps while none will ever be enough for the Bidens." I defy you to read the major papers, listen to the major networks and prestigious weeklies and justify that. The reverse is true.

You have not dealt honestly with me and I am done.

Liza said...

You have not dealt honestly with me and I am done.

If you wish to be done, then be done. You have no obligation to engage with me.

However, I think your overall ending comment is unfair. You accuse me of straying off topic, but I am only answering the topics you and others brought into the conversation. It's not possible for me to address each and every idea, tangent, and issue that has creeped into this conversation, so I have attempted to answer the ones that stand out to me. To turn that around as me changing the conversation seems strange. Go back and reread and see who introduced what and when.

My comment abut excuses was not about the MSM, but about the comments here, from similar places online, FoxNews and other right-leaning sources. I feel as if there is some sort of Bizarro-world view that has fallen upon us and the country as a whole, where there is unending projection. All of the things that are being said about "MSM" and Biden could equally be said about FoxNews, OANN, Newsmax, and other sources in reverse...they hardly mention Trump scandals and failings, while putting out a steady drumbeat against Biden and Democrats in general.

You have not dealt honestly with me and I am done.

I truly am sorry that you feel this way. I am perplexed at why my comments about Trump, and yes my dislike of the things he has done and said..and the way he has behaved these past 4 years has the effect of making you feel personally affronted. I have tried to address the points and not to make it personal. I strongly disagree with your defenses of him in some of the topics you brought up. At no point have I castigated you for having them.

As far as calling me a "mere partisan" goes, I think it's an easy way to dismiss me. I voted mostly Republican for *decades* and am still technically a registered Republican though the past few years have made me shed that designation. While it may seem to you that I am a dime-a-dozen liberal who has come to troll your blog, I can assure you that though I have lurked for many years, I mostly don't comment because I know how my comments will be received: pretty much this way.

Currently, we find ourselves in a state in this country where we are so divided in our disagreements that I am not sure how we will move forward. I attempted this conversation because I do disagree and thought maybe it would be worth it to engage with you and others who I knew from the outset wouldn't be sympathetic to my points of view, but I figured it was worth trying. Seeing things end like this is disappointing..not because you still disagree with me, or haven't been persuaded, but because it just ends as all these conversations seem to end out in the wilds of life....with absolutely no way to move forward or for anyone to feel like there is a way to settle on a neutral view.

Has the MSM treated Biden differently? Maybe, Probably, Some of them. I disagree with the underlying premise that it is a liberal conspiracy. News outlets have certainly covered it. So the goal-posts got moved at some point in the conversation from "they haven't covered it" to "they have covered it, but in a partisan way" to " well not enough Bien voters seem to be aware of it" to "in their covering it, they haven't 'held his feet to the fire'". These are all slightly different metrics. And I think the same can be said of Trump and right-leaning news/sites....which is why accusing the MSM of "stealing" the election falls flat in my view. I could make the same accusation about FoxNews and Trump, that their favorable, free coverage of him "stole" votes that would have gone to Biden. What do those accusations even mean and how do we even measure such a thing?

Liza said...

HAD TO SPLIT MY COMMENT BECAUSE IT WAS TOO LONG

Then when we start talking about Twitter as if it is a news organization, things really fall apart for me. As much as people might use Twitter and Facebook for aggregating news, they are not news organizations. Their content is generated by their users and runs the gamut from serious and credible to outright looney to weird rabbit holes in all political directions. If you don't like what's on Twitter, your problem is with the people who use it, not the "MSM". Eliding the differences between MSM and social media makes the whole conversation moot. Of course, that was not your point, but another commenter's, so I am not attributing those comments to you.

I am sorry things went this way.

Be well.

Zachriel said...

Assistant Village Idiot: The topic of the post was media bias, and that Trump has not gotten a fair shake while Biden has been covered for.

Without constant free media coverage of Trump in 2016, he would never have been elected president. Keep in mind that Trump promoted birtherism for years, and it helped propel him to the Republican nomination. The media enjoyed Trump's outrageous outbursts. They were free, easy to cover, and led to millions of clicks.

That's your media bias for ya.


Assistant Village Idiot said...

Give me one indication that any of the points anyone else has made has any value whatsoever, or that you have reconsidered the wording or presentation of anything you said that could have been clearer. Without that, there is no point in answering you, however reasonable you may seem to be in your own mind. Case in point: You are truly sorry that I feel this way. That has been a red flag line for years.

Again I believe your points are answerable, partly or fully. Make it worth my while.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

@ Zachriel - I agree that Trump benefited in terms of getting the nomination, and in getting the word out who he is. But that is not the media being biased in his favor or giving him the benefit of any doubt, it is his gaming the system to make it work for him. It remains the case that Biden has been protected - no outcry at his unavailability during the late campaign, for example. There's nothing illegal about him doing that and that may have been the correct strategy. But reporters of actual news, who are attempting to get what the story is, have insisted on politicians coming out and speaking with them and speaking to the public. They ceased to do that with Obama, who limited access and did not hold press conferences. That strategy worked on his part because that was his way of gaming the system. He held access to sources as a reward for well-behaved journalists. It's not illegal, but their response was simply not journalism. The same this time around for Biden. The majority of outlets did not press him on the issue or chatter about it in the least. In the same way, Trump has not gotten a fair shake in that most outlets had different standards for stories, for evidence, and for weight. They are allowed to do that, but they then are susceptible to the charge of bias. The idea that because there are some conservative outlets which do the same that everything is all just even-up free-market stuff is very much the same analogy used to keep black players out of the major leagues. After all, it's a free country and MLB could organise itself whatever way it wanted. And black players could always go to the Negro Leagues to play. Is that really how you want to be arguing?

Zachriel said...

Assistant Village Idiot: it is his gaming the system to make it work for him.

That's right! Because the media is biased towards easy to tell stories. Journalism about wars or the outbreak of disease in far off lands may impact Americans more in the long run, but they are much harder to sell. There's your media bias ya.

(When the political right attacks science, such as the spending of money for an arcane study of viruses in bats, keep in mind that this sort of basic science can often have an important long-term impact.)

Assistant Village Idiot: It remains the case that Biden has been protected - no outcry at his unavailability during the late campaign, for example.

Biden was very active in the late campaign. We can only guess why you would think otherwise.
https://blog.4president.org/2020/2020/10/joe-biden-jill-biden-kamala-harris-and-doug-emhoff-to-barnstorm-pennsylvania-on-monday-november-2-2020.html

Assistant Village Idiot: They ceased to do that with Obama, who limited access and did not hold press conferences.

Of course Obama held press conferences. We can only guess why you would think otherwise.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/770405/obama-held-11-press-conferences-1st-year-trump-held-1

Assistant Village Idiot: After all, it's a free country and MLB could organise itself whatever way it wanted. And black players could always go to the Negro Leagues to play. Is that really how you want to be arguing?

MLB is a government sanctioned monopoly, so it is certainly subject to anti-discrimination law. In addition, race is specifically addressed in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Partisan politics are not. Newspapers can take sides. Again, you can decry the media for bias, but that doesn't represent stealing the election.

Liza said...

You are truly sorry that I feel this way. That has been a red flag line for years.

It's not a red flag. My comment explains that I don't think that I have dealt dishonestly with you, and I explained why. I am sorry that you feel that I have, but I can't control how you or anyone else takes my disagreement.

It's really that simple.

It seems like you are looking for reasons and motivations to ignore or dismiss what I have to say. In your mind, I am partisan, dishonest, insincere, etc., etc. What could I say to even break through that perception? You've built a little trap in which the only way to prove I am not those things is to agree with you, but the whole point of my commenting in the first place is that I don't agree with you. Just as you think I am partisan, I think some of the views in this post and thread are built on propagating a view of this election and the general functioning of all elections that is partisan. It translates an idea that some media outlets lean one way or the other into meaning that a vast conspiracy exists to take something that rightfully belonged to someone else...to "steal" an election from Trump and his supporters.

It's not a good frame for thinking about things because there is no way back from that type of thinking. If you and others actually believe that, what's the solution? We find ourselves cornered by our own certainties and beliefs with no way to get our of them.

It's a holiday weekend. I am with family. I have already spent too much time formulating thoughts and typing. I can do no more today.

If I have time later, I will attempt to see if there is a way to give you what you want.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I wrote at length and then somehow destroyed it. I will try again later

Aggie said...



I find that Ground News (https://ground.news/) with its up-front presentation of bias is a good place to read up on given stories. Many stories aggregated under given topics and one knows going into it the balance of overall coverage, and the bias inherent individual reports.

Always a pleasure to see arguments presented in Good Faith.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

@ Zachriel - identifying the media bias toward stories does not in any way mean other biases do not exist. True? In fact they do exist and do affect public perception. As the larger outlets call themselves "news" outlets and are granted precious space in the White House press corps, they have a moral responsibility to report news. They are also the ones chosen as debate moderators and likewise have some responsibility to evenhandedness. That there is no enforceable law against any of this is irrelevant to the moral issue. We are not talking about an industrial newsletter or propaganda arm of a non-profit. I call them out and accuse them of unfairly bending the truth because it is rather abundantly true. I mentioned the bias creeping into other parts of the industry - sports, food, travel, movies. It deserves to be pointed out. Your only defense so far has been "but it's legal." Doesn't matter, it is still dishonest.

Yes, Obama did hold some press conferences, especially his first two years. I did not mean to absolutise that. But he had many fewer than Bush and presidents before that. Trump is doing much the same and I don't like it from him either. But lots of grumbling emerged from the press corps under Obama but little was put out publicly - and it is fair to wonder why. The Biden campaigning article works against you. He did much less than previous presidents in the final weeks - where do you think the phrase "putting a lid on the day" came from? I think the NYT actually did mention it at least once. But it was obvious, so that when he did go out and campaign it was a clear PR move to play that up big. "See! There he is! Campaigning!" It's cherry-picking on your part.

I used the Negro League example precisely because you were using the old mid-century argument yourself. What MLB does now is a change of subject, quite irrelevant. I mentioned writers deviating even a little losing their spots at the major outlets, and you countered that they had other places they could go. Yeah, like the Negro Leagues. Consolation prizes.

As for attacking government funded scientific research, I haven't seen much of that lately but somehow you see fit to suddenly insert it as a right-wing criticism, as if that is unknown on the left. Much of it, especially the social science, is crap. Government funding also follows political lines, and in a government which has the huge majority of its civil servants voting Democratic, the money flows in that direction. I don't see much conservative complaining about basic science, but wish they might complain more about other, especially in the context of funding colleges.

General statement. When I write that A does not do x very often, he does it much less often than B, I have to wonder why you think that "Here is an example of A doing x" is much of an argument. It's a little something, but the fact that you used something so weak suggests you haven't got anything better. And when you come back to such things and insist they are important, I think the discussion is then closed.

I doubt too many people are reading anymore. Purely a practice exercise for all of us, I suspect. I will write to Liza as well, but I have other things to do at present, as she does.

pakistani matrimonial rishta said...

Introducing Pakistan Rishta service
Welcome to Rishta Pakistan Website Allah Swt made your partner already
in heaven so we help for finding your life partner at earth through this
website Create an account and look for your Muslim life partner
E-Commerce Diversify
Roofing company

Zachriel said...

Assistant Village Idiot: identifying the media bias toward stories does not in any way mean other biases do not exist. True?

Of course.

Assistant Village Idiot: In fact they do exist and do affect public perception.

Of course.

Assistant Village Idiot: As the larger outlets call themselves "news" outlets and are granted precious space in the White House press corps, they have a moral responsibility to report news.

Which they do.

Assistant Village Idiot: I call them out and accuse them of unfairly bending the truth because it is rather abundantly true.

That wasn't the issue we raised though.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

@ Liza - I received a private communication that I am being too harsh on you, from someone who is likely correct about such things. So I will have another go, and hope that the tone is at least better, even if the content is similar.

@ Zachriel - They are being dishonest. I think that is very similar to theft.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

In the early 90s there ws a caller to the Larry King show who mentioned media bias early in the call. King said "There is no conspiracy, caller" and hung up. I remember thinking He didn't say anything about a conspiracy. Very few conservatives believe in conspiracies - that would be Hillary Clinton. I have written on that here and on other people's sites, that there is a lot of acting independently according to bias, and the bias self-reinforcing, not any consultation or plans.

There are many ways to show that one has heard and considered another POV seriously without necessarily agreeing. "Yes, but..." "No, but..." "I think it's actually worse than what you said..." "I am making a distinction that I think you are missing..." I find for myself that even pretending to do that is instructive, and sometimes calls forth the very attention I aspire to. I will sometimes use direct quotes of what the other person has written, but when I remember, I avoid that, because it is subtly a way to avoid engagement by pulling isolated statements out of context. Responding to whole content is more reliable.

I don't think there is an equivalence between legacy media and the conservative sources. Fox has turned on Trump. I have never heard of OANN, and only heard of Newsmax a couple of weeks ago for the first time. Even if they are just as biased, or worse, they don't have the clout. I linked earlier to a post from earlier this month, and link here again. https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/19305198/6835047137007780137?hl=en I don't think it is some 60-40 deal on media bias, I think it is still 90-10, even with conservatives actively seeking out sources that agree with them. If you remember Jonathan Haidt's work, conservatives are much more aware of what the liberal opinions actually are than vice versa. Twitter and Facebook were not news sources, but the day they began censoring particular stories they became one. Once one is curating the news, one is now a reporter.

I think the issue with Hunter Biden is much worse than just a troubled past. Companies in China and Ukraine are paying him very big money for doing nothing. That is a matter of record. They at least think they are getting something for that, not just years ago, but now. Maybe he is conning them and they are getting nothing, but it always deserves attention. The report is that he did arrange a meeting with Joe, there is some record of it and the Biden campaign said "It wasn't on his formal schedule." That's not a very good answer. There is a further accusation of $10M paid to the Big Guy, which Hunter's communications in other emails means his father. Maybe it's not in this instance. Maybe Hunter is just blowing smoke. I say that looking into this should be automatic on the part of the press. Now it will never happen. We will never know the answer, and it will be waved off whenever conservatives bring it up. The joke in medicine is that WNL, which means within normal limits more usually means we never looked.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

So Hunter makes big money, and Chelsea gets appointed to boards, and the middle-class Clintons become fabulously wealthy, the middle-class Obamas become fabulously wealthy, and the Bidens become wealthy from going into politics. I assume most of it was done legally, but that's hardly the point. They did not sacrifice any opportunity cost by going into the presidency and vice-presidency, politics was their opportunity. That's why no one mentioned it before, not because they were so moral, but because they were rather obviously not giving anything up. Trump claims he has. I agree that could be bluster, exaggeration, flat-out lie...or the truth. It's not just his own word as evidence on this. Hell, maybe the people he left in charge are doing a better job than he would have. But it at least comes up as a legitimate question with him, as no one ever dreamed it could with the others. The Bushes may or may not have benefited - they were old-line wealthy to begin with. I recall it being brought up during both presidencies, but was not a five-star story with either.

Which brings me to the Trump children. I don't like nepotism, but the son-in-law at least seems to be accomplishing things which have eluded others. I can't see the objection to being part of the administration. The children directly, I don't think should be hired but i also don't think it is a big deal, not when we look at the advantages which have accrued to the Biden and Clinton children, which is millions. At least the Trump kids are providing some work in return. As for the RNC buying Don's books, they can do what they want. The Democrats do all this informally, and with more style, wink wink, nod nod. They also do it - literally - a hundred times more profitably. Usually quite legally, though sometimes it's marginal. When the Obamas went on vacation to Martha's Vineyard they always do some serious fund raising. Seems legal. They get paid for making speeches. Also legal. It doesn't look much like a narrow focus on doing the job of the presidency, however. When Trump wants to have a big international event at his own place so that he can show it off I wince "Don, you just can't do things that way." But I also know that is only a difference of appearance.

And I maintain that if this were reported evenhandedly a lot more people would see it as I do, as irritating stuff that someone should talk him out of, but nowhere near the danger to the republic that Democrats trading favors from government to politics to business to universities to friends to family to media (going back and forth between MSM and government jobs, for example). Republicans do it too, but they have many fewer goods to trade. Washington DC is 95% Democrat, and the very wealthy suburbs are enormously Democrat as well. That's the government, the wealthy people favoring each other, and it dwarfs all other corruption.

Zachriel said...

Assistant Village Idiot: the middle-class Clintons become fabulously wealthy, the middle-class Obamas become fabulously wealthy, and the Bidens become wealthy

They have all released their tax returns, so we know how they made their money, mostly from book sales and speaking engagements. Obama was a best-selling author before he was president. There is transparency.

Assistant Village Idiot: They did not sacrifice any opportunity cost by going into the presidency and vice-presidency, politics was their opportunity.

But the profit didn't come from mingling of private and public concerns.

Assistant Village Idiot: Trump claims he has.

There is no transparency.

Assistant Village Idiot: Companies in China and Ukraine are paying him very big money for doing nothing. That is a matter of record. They at least think they are getting something for that, not just years ago, but now.

Some of the money is exaggerated, but he certainly pocketed some money. They are paying for hoped for access. While liberals have attempted to regulate such conflicts, the efforts have been strenuously resisted by conservatives. Some degree of rubbing elbows is not only inevitable but useful.

Hunter Biden has recently distanced himself from foreign sources.

Assistant Village Idiot: At least the Trump kids are providing some work in return.

There is no transparency and a mingling of private and public concerns. Gee whiz, Trump was self-dealing from his charity!

RichardJohnson said...

For Liza to debunk or deny: Trump has a point about the media


The media’s partisan hostility to Trump led to the abandonment of objectivity and truth.