Insight from Dan Rather

[homersapien 12,237]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

I disputed plenty. Your partisan stance is noted.

You disputed what Rather said about himself, not what he said about Trump.

[AUFAN78 4,156]

Just now, homersapien said:

Partisan rhetoric?    

Apparently you consider the news to be partisan rhetoric.

 

Well yeah, I do. 

[AUFAN78 4,156]

Just now, homersapien said:

You disputed what Rather said about himself, not what he said about Trump.

Wrong. Read it again.

[homersapien 12,237]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Wrong. Read it again.

Just finished reading it again. I am absolutely right.

Do you seriously think Obama - or any other POTUS - comes close to lying at the level Trump does?

BTW, how's that investigation into the 3 million fraudulent votes going?

[AUFAN78 4,156]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Just finished reading it again. I am absolutely right.

Do you seriously think Obama - or any other POTUS - comes close to lying at the level Trump does?

BTW, how's that investigation into the 3 million fraudulent votes going?

LOL. Sure you are. 

Don't twist the man's words homes. He stated president's lying was not normal. I gave you a couple examples debunking the claim.

I am not familiar with the investigation you speak of.

[TitanTiger 21,242]

I would like to see some specific examples that demonstrate how Rather is liberal.  Note - being critical of a Republican is not sufficient evidence.  

[TitanTiger 21,242]

I will also note:  being a liberal (or a conservative) is not evidence alone of being unfairly biased.  There are liberals and conservatives who work very hard to be fair in their criticisms.  And sometimes even when they are unfair and tend to only point out the flaws and issues with the other side, it still doesn't mean they are wrong.  

[TexasTiger 14,297]

15 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

There were several and I pointed them out. Did you miss my post? I suggest you read it.

You demonstrated your extreme partisanship and seeming inability to make a substantive argument.

[TexasTiger 14,297]

21 hours ago, Grumps said:

It is sad that Dan Rather, who used to be a news icon, is now a bitter liberal hack. His rant is pretty pathetic.

So you see no substance in what he says? Trump is normal and in keeping with our long-held standards and values that have helped our country persevere through difficult times?

[homersapien 12,237]

13 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

LOL. Sure you are. 

Don't twist the man's words homes. He stated president's lying was not normal. I gave you a couple examples debunking the claim.

I am not familiar with the investigation you speak of.

The degree to which Trump lies is not normal.  It's his signature.

You have provided nothing that disputes that.

"All presidents lie. Richard Nixon said he was not a crook, yet he orchestrated the most shamelessly crooked act in the modern presidency. Ronald Reagan said he wasn’t aware of the Iran-Contra deal; there’s evidence he was. Bill Clinton said he did not have sex with that woman; he did, or close enough. Lying in politics transcends political party and era. It is, in some ways, an inherent part of the profession of politicking.

But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent. Nixon, Reagan and Clinton were protecting their reputations; Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true. (Compare that to the politician Trump dubbed “crooked,” Hillary Clinton: Just 26 percent of her statements were deemed false.)"

Go to http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658 for the full article.  

Or just search "Trump lies" for similar stories.

 

[homersapien 12,237]

14 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I am not familiar with the investigation you speak of.

But Trump said he would have won the popular vote if some 3 million illegal votes hadn't been cast!

Now you are saying there's no investigation??!!

Don't you think that number of fraudulent votes deserves and investigation?

[homersapien 12,237]

14 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Well yeah, I do. 

So none of what you see or hear on the news is factual?

How about Trump's tweets?   Are they fake?   

[homersapien 12,237]

14 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Don't twist the man's words homes. He stated president's lying was not normal. I gave you a couple examples debunking the claim.

Now you are lying.  What Rather said was:

"We have a President who lies without a second thought. Big bold lies that are easily disproven. That is not normal."

That's factual.

[bigbird 60,939]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I would like to see some specific examples that demonstrate how Rather is liberal.  Note - being critical of a Republican is not sufficient evidence.  

https://www.mckendree.edu/academics/scholars/issue4/pannier.htm

[SaltyTiger 8,573]

I really liked Dan Rather when I used to watch Sixty Minutes. Is this really insight whatever "insight" is. Appears to be reiterating the same old stuff we have been hearing daily.

[Grumps 3,706]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

So you see no substance in what he says? Trump is normal and in keeping with our long-held standards and values that have helped our country persevere through difficult times?

Is there SOME substance in what he says...sure! I agree with him that Trump is not your normal POTUS. But look at what Rather said:

As with many of my fellow Americans, I don't consider myself partisan politically - never have. I am a registered independent voter and have been for most of my life. With that in mind, I submit the following:

Can we please get this out of the way? None of what is happening at the top of government now is normal. None of it. And no one should normalize it. No one. 

This is obviously an exaggeration.

We have a President who lies without a second thought. Big bold lies that are easily disproven. That is not normal.

As AU64 implied, which POTUS didn't lie frequently?

We have serious allegations around obstruction of justice by that President. That is not normal.

We had serious allegations that Obama wasn't born in the U.S., and that was garbage. Do you REALLY think that Trump obstructed justice during his talk with Comey? Rather said "allegations" because he knows that there is no evidence.

We have an FBI director fired for insisting to continue pursuing a serious investigation into the sanctify of our republic. It has never happened before in our history. That is not normal. 

We have testimony from Comey himself that he did his job poorly and that he was unethical. Those are two great reasons for him to be fired, don't you think? Do we have evidence that Comey was fired "for insisting to continue pursuing a serious investigation into the sanctity of our republic?" This seems like a flat out lie to me.

We have a hostile foreign power attacking and undermining our electoral process. That is not normal.

I don't see what this has to do with Trump. The U.S. meddles with elections in other countries to get the outcome we desire. It is not surprising that other countries would try to influence our elections. I don't think that Trump paid Russia to try to smear Mrs. Clinton's campaign. Is there evidence to the contrary?

We have an Attorney General under a serious shadow of association with said foreign power, with indications that there is much more to this story than we yet know. That is not normal.

Evidence please! "Association" is like "allegations". Let's see some evidence. Has anyone said yet what Trump hopes to gain by being so friendly with Putin?

We have Federal judges, our closest foreign allies, and the free press under scurrilous attack from the President and his enablers. At the same time we have despots praised. That is not normal.

"Scurrilous attack" that sounds really bad. Here is another gross exaggeration. I seem to remember some socialist leaders being praised in the last decade by a previous foreign leader.

We have an Administration fanning the flames of division over race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and gender. That is not normal.

This one may be the craziest yet. Fanning the flames how? Like lighting up the White House in rainbow colors? Please explain.

We have an overhaul of our entire health care system being written in secret on a rapid time frame. That is not normal.

Once again, HILARIOUS! Remember "We have to pass it so we can find out what's in it?

We have a sordid confluence of the President's business interests and his political power. That is not normal.

I completely agree with Rather on this one. Trump has more business interests than any other POTUS I can remember. This isn't normal. Of course, that is why he was elected. Do we have evidence that Trump is doing anything to help his business interests that is hurting the country?

My problem with Rather's rant is that I still want to consider him to be a journalist. You know, like, there are two sides to every story, and I should probably have some evidence to support my claims. Things like that. To use Rather's wording, for a journalist, his post was "not normal." It makes me sad that this icon of journalism is willing to portray himself the way I perceive him to be from his post. It is similar to Trump tweeting stupid comments all of the time--the behavior is acceptable from a common citizen, but it is pathetic to be coming from the POTUS.

[TitanTiger 21,242]

6 hours ago, bigbird said:

https://www.mckendree.edu/academics/scholars/issue4/pannier.htm

Thanks for posting that.  I'm going to dig a little deeper on a few things the person cites.

I'll agree with the editorializing during the live raid to take Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba.

I take issue with this one:

Quote

On the May 13, 2003 edition of CBS Evening News, Rather reports:

The President calls the tax cut necessary. Democrats call it a campaign for the wealthy. So far, it’s a problematic sell for the President. In a CBS News/New York Times poll out tonight, less than half the respondents thought the Bush tax cut would actually help the economy. (Dan Rather’s [1])  

But according to the Media Research Center’s article “Dan Rather’s Liberal Bias,” “Rather failed to report that the poll he cited showed twice as many said tax cuts would help the economy (41 percent) than said new tax cuts would hurt (19 percent)” ([1]).  This time, Rather’s bias was one of omission.  He didn’t report the entire poll.  He just reported the part that made the tax cuts appear “problematic.”

This isn’t liberal bias.  Rather is reporting on a specific tax cut proposal - the one put forth by George W. Bush.  The meat of the survey here is what people believe about *THAT* tax cut, not tax cuts in general.  When you see questions like that in a survey, it’s not the main thrust of the survey, it’s a question that allows for comparison.  In other words, it’s purpose is to show how people view this specific proposal compared to what their default position on tax cuts in general is.  And in fact, to include that response in Rather’s report would have been *less* favorable to Bush’s tax cut efforts than omitting it because what the survey tells you is that even though twice as many people in the survey think tax cuts are helpful (they are favorable toward tax cuts in general), they don’t think that Bush’s tax cuts in particular will be.

I’ll agree with the slant on the Clinton leak as Gore was preparing to give his speech as the Democratic nominee.

The report about the Soviet losses in Afghanistan wasn’t about bias, but about getting the facts wrong.
 

I think this particular report overall claims more than it actually shows.

[bigbird 60,939]

38 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think this particular report overall claims more than it actually shows.

Most likely

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

On 6/10/2017 at 5:37 PM, AUFAN78 said:

His friends say he is biased. Think!

Again, on this issue he is spot on. Trumps behavior is incorrigible. It's time people stop normalizing it by saying his critics are biased.

[AUFAN78 4,156]

14 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I would like to see some specific examples that demonstrate how Rather is liberal.  Note - being critical of a Republican is not sufficient evidence.  

Here is a good start. 

http://archive.mrc.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp

For the record, I could care less whether he is critical of a Republican or Democrat. Just be factual. 

[AUFAN78 4,156]

14 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I will also note:  being a liberal (or a conservative) is not evidence alone of being unfairly biased.  There are liberals and conservatives who work very hard to be fair in their criticisms.  And sometimes even when they are unfair and tend to only point out the flaws and issues with the other side, it still doesn't mean they are wrong.  

Agree completely. 

[AUFAN78 4,156]

12 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You demonstrated your extreme partisanship and seeming inability to make a substantive argument.

Your partisan bias is noted. Prove me wrong. As I did with Dan.

[AUFAN78 4,156]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

The degree to which Trump lies is not normal.  It's his signature.

You have provided nothing that disputes that.

"All presidents lie. Richard Nixon said he was not a crook, yet he orchestrated the most shamelessly crooked act in the modern presidency. Ronald Reagan said he wasn’t aware of the Iran-Contra deal; there’s evidence he was. Bill Clinton said he did not have sex with that woman; he did, or close enough. Lying in politics transcends political party and era. It is, in some ways, an inherent part of the profession of politicking.

But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent. Nixon, Reagan and Clinton were protecting their reputations; Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true. (Compare that to the politician Trump dubbed “crooked,” Hillary Clinton: Just 26 percent of her statements were deemed false.)"

Go to http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658 for the full article.  

Or just search "Trump lies" for similar stories.

 

PolitiFact and Politico have a proven partisan bias. Find a reputable non-biased source please. 

[AUFAN78 4,156]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

But Trump said he would have won the popular vote if some 3 million illegal votes hadn't been cast!

Now you are saying there's no investigation??!!

Don't you think that number of fraudulent votes deserves and investigation?

My goal is not to defend Trump commentary.  Not my problem. 

What investigation? I don't even know what you are talking about. Perhaps you can provide links to this investigation you speak of?

What? 

[AUFAN78 4,156]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

So none of what you see or hear on the news is factual?

How about Trump's tweets?   Are they fake?   

Your words, not mine. 

I don't tweet.