DiscussMormonism.com

I think I understand how to be a good journalizer.

You witness a Republican tell a hysterical, transparent lie as a defense against corruption. Being a liberal with a basic education and a brain not poisoned by disinformation, you recognize it for what it is. But, having learned how to be a journalmalist, you do your job and imagine in your mind's eye some other, dumber person than you. You surmise that person, being a total rube, will be dazzled by this lie. So you then get out your journalticizing tools and write an article about how Democrats said X, but Republicans said Y, and that Y probably plays well in some crowd that you think you are better than. To prove your point, you contact your favorite GOP operative programmed into your phone to generate quotes, call them a swing voter, and get a line about how the obvious lie is a really convincing point to most important people in the world - older white folks in diners.

Having established this narrative, you go on to predict that this will just be partisan bickering match and the public won't budge on allegations you personally regard as obvious. You give your article a title like, "Democrats see X, but Republicans counter Y. Swing voters remain unpersuaded. Democrats flummoxed and in disarray." You then pour yourself a glass of wine to celebrate another fine job of journalisticphorizing.

Then wait and see how public opinion goes. If the public, having read articles like yours, doesn't move their opinion, congrats, you were right again. Great job. If their opinion does change, [Does not compute. Error. Error.] just write yourself another article like this. Journalinicatizing.

Nomomo wrote:The Reality Of The Impeachment Hearings Is........

except not "reality"...just a cartoon strip making fun.

subgenius wrote:except not "reality"...just a cartoon strip making fun.

If you have actually watched and followed these hearings, it is unbelievable to me that you can actually still believe that there is no reality to the evidence of Trump's guilt. Unlike Trump himself, that evidence and the witnesses presenting it are unimpeachable! Denying that, given the evidence available, is no less irrational and/or dishonest than denying that the earth is a rotating spheroid revolving around the sun! Those who still deny Trump's mendacity, corruption and dishonesty are not any more worthy of being taken seriously than are flat earthers.

What the Republicans seem to be arguing, in effect, is equivalent to arguing that bank robbers whose plans to rob a bank were discovered and halted before completion of the robbery are innocent of any wrongdoing.

What is even stupider is the claim, or, at least the implication made by some of Trump's supporters, that there is nothing really illegal or indictable about corruption, as long as it is perpetrated unabashedly in the full light of day, where everyone can see it.

Gunnar wrote:

subgenius wrote:except not "reality"...just a cartoon strip making fun.

If you have actually watched and followed these hearings, it is unbelievable to me that you can actually still believe that there is no reality to the evidence of Trump's guilt....

Do us a quick favor and list the top 3 pieces of evidence.
But the testimony where Sondland states that Trump did NOT instruct him to quid pro quo doesn't count as 1 of those 3

subgenius wrote:Do us a quick favor and list the top 3 pieces of evidence.
But the testimony where Sondland states that Trump did NOT instruct him to quid pro quo doesn't count as 1 of those 3

You really are a glutton for humiliation aren't you? Have you forgotten the numerous times you have been humiliated by people immediately answering your challenge to list evidence showing how you were wrong, sometimes from the very sources you yourself had cited, mistakenly or dishonestly presenting them as supporting your view by misreading or cherry picking them to make them seem to support, at times, the very opposite of what their authors were really saying? Do you really want me or anyone else to do that to you again?

As for Sondland's testimony, you know, don't you, that he did, in the end, acknowledge there was actual quid pro quo, despite whether or not Trump explicitly requested it or characterized it as such, and that Sondland's testimony ultimately turned out to be among the most devastating evidences against Trump?

ETA: I strongly recommend you follow Dr. Cam's suggestion to read Fiona Hill's Testimony. It was very damning and highly credible. She is not a never Trumper nor partisan, and a Trump appointee. There is no good reason to impugn her honesty, or accuse her of merely having it in for Trump.

These hearings fully establish that the American right is nothing more than a pitiful cult.

You are fundamentally dishonest in some core way if you think Trump is anything but a corrupt President.

Amen to that, POMM!