• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Brad Sallows said:
Bari Weiss, who has delayed the story, has plenty of credibility. Sharyn Alfonsi, the reporter, has not very much.

Weiss is doing the stuff that agencies used to do and which earned them their reputations as "trustworthy" (for those which had it). If Trump's overturning of some rules and practices has upset people so much that they no longer want other rules and practices restored, there's nothing to prefer between him or them.
Click to expand...
Why do you say that Sharyn Alfonsi doesn’t have much credibility? That s quite a blanket statement . Care to pull back the blanket and let us see what’s under it?
 
Brad Sallows said:
I am confident the US would join. I have less confidence in some other members of NATO. I have confidence the US contribution would be meaningful, if not immediately decisive. I have less confidence some other members of NATO will provide very much other than political solidarity.
Click to expand...
I agree, I think Luxembourg, Iceland and other such smaller nations would struggle.
 
Czech_pivo said:
I agree, I think Luxembourg, Iceland and other such smaller nations would struggle.
Click to expand...
I think he was referring to more significant NATO partners dragging their heels. I'm looking at Turkey, Greece and Spain... Basically all of Southern Europe minus Italy.
 
Brad Sallows said:
False claim that she reasonably could have known was false.

Michael Schellenberger on X summarizes.
Click to expand...
Friend that’s a mighty thin blanket you pulled back.
First, did Publix or DeSantis sue 60 Minutes for their story?
Second, ‘the person’ at the White House, lol, like that has a lot of credibility. This ‘person’ could been a washroom attendant for all we know.
Your comments/opinion making rational on this is might thin, given your background I’d except a lot more empirical evidence before jumping to this conclusion.
 
Lumber said:
I think he was referring to more significant NATO partners dragging their heels. I'm looking at Turkey, Greece and Spain... Basically all of Southern Europe minus Italy.
Click to expand...
I’ve never expected them to do much over the last 50yrs.
Sadly they are like those distant relatives that your parents insist on having to invite to your wedding with you knowing full well that they won’t attend, even though they reside a block away from the reception hall.
 
FJAG said:
A Wikipedia snapshot of her credentials for those who want to make up their own minds.
Click to expand...
Not a peep about arguably her most controversial mistake, if not deliberate misrepresentation. Wikipedia at its gate-kept best.
 
Czech_pivo said:
Friend that’s a mighty thin blanket you pulled back.
First, did Publix or DeSantis sue 60 Minutes for their story?
Second, ‘the person’ at the White House, lol, like that has a lot of credibility. This ‘person’ could been a washroom attendant for all we know.
Your comments/opinion making rational on this is might thin, given your background I’d except a lot more empirical evidence before jumping to this conclusion.
Click to expand...
The truth or falsity doesn't hinge on whether anyone sued. What matters is the claim was false, and it had been earlier openly stated to be false. If it matters, you'll notice Moskowitz is a Democrat.

The most charitable explanation is no-one doing that story knew about the prior Miami Herald story and resultant counter-claim. Otherwise in increasingly discreditable order, someone at the time knew and didn't mention it, or it was mentioned and they decided to ignore it.

When sub-par work has been produced in the past, it's reasonable to take safeguards against sub-par work in the present. It's well-known (at least among US media and a lot of the related commentariat) that Weiss's hiring and appointment is controversial among staff. It's not hard to figure out that the "controversy" is that she proposes to tighten up standards. It's harder to slide out misleading narratives in that kind of environment.

What the WH does or doesn't say in response to questioning is irrelevant to my point. The essential facts of the reported story can be as the segment alleges and the claims about Weiss and her motives can be entirely wrong.
 
Czech_pivo said:
Second, ‘the person’ at the White House, lol, like that has a lot of credibility. This ‘person’ could been a washroom attendant for all we know.
Click to expand...
Of course. File that one away for the next time "anonymous" sources are cited by anyone.
 
Brad Sallows said:
False claim that she reasonably could have known was false.

Michael Schellenberger on X summarizes.
Click to expand...
This Michael Schellenberger?

thebreakthrough.org

Michael and Me

thebreakthrough.org thebreakthrough.org
Click to expand...

Michael Shellenberger is far better known today as a right-wing political influencer than he ever was during the period we worked together. . . . Like Michael, I long ago left the progressive environmental echo chamber. But Michael has gone through a MAGA-tinted looking glass and now trafficks in deep state conspiracies about UFOs, January 6th, and social media censorship far nuttier and more extreme than anything that his former progressive allies could ever have conjured up.
Click to expand...

Let he who is without sin . . .

:unsure:
 
So I am seeing that certain files that were released can actually be unredacted if you download them and use a simple python script, due to how those PDF's were created.

I am going to refrain from linking anything just to be safe, but they're in the wild now for the curious.
 
FJAG said:
This Michael Schellenberger?
Click to expand...
Yes, that Schellenberger.

Supposing Nordhaus's opinions of Schellenberger having odd beliefs about UFOs and J6 and censorship (Schellenberger co-investigated the "Twitter Files" with Matt Taibbi) to be true and not inflected by Nordhaus's own politics, they are irrelevant to the facts. I put up a link to Schellenberg's X post because it was a convenient summary of facts I already knew from other reading.

Moskowitz on X

Also Moskowitz

The second post is particularly interesting. "We didn't get an interview" is not the same as "we didn't get a response".
 
HavokFour said:
So I am seeing that certain files that were released can actually be unredacted if you download them and use a simple python script, due to how those PDF's were created.

I am going to refrain from linking anything just to be safe, but they're in the wild now for the curious.
Click to expand...

Poor quality redaction by adding layers to a PDF is a tale as old as time.

(Or at least as old as the PDF standard)
 
Brad Sallows said:
they are irrelevant to the facts
Click to expand...
There's the point.

You decided to discredit Alfonsi's credibility by a post from Schellenberger who himself is problematic. But we don't know the actual facts in the Publix matter because it was never addressed in depth because before the report his people ran for cover. The fact that Publix and various Florida Republican shills objected after the fact is par for the course.

The actual point here is that Alfonsi does have a solid reputation as an investigative reporter covering decades. Schellenberger is irrelevant. You're trying to deflect from the factual situation behind the 60 minutes story by an oblique ad hominin attack on Alfonsi. That's typical MAGA strategy.

🍻
 
brihard said:
The ineptitude is amazing.
Click to expand...
I don't know about the police field but in the law one, two and a bit decades ago the search for a software solution that would really, really redact an electronic document permanently was a major issue. At the time there were several solutions that did redaction but could still be compromised.

I would have thought that by this time that there would be a foolproof tool and that DoJ would have it widely deployed.

:unsure:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top