She lost her district and no longer has a way back in other than attempting to be a talking head that makes people glad she no longer represents them.
This is a very good thread: From an initial universe of 50,000+ tweets from 32 Twitter feeds operated by major national news outlets, we identified 2,000+ tweets that referenced Trump comments. 30% of those tweets referenced false claims, but roughly two-thirds of the time, the outlets didn't note that.— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) May 3, 2019 I discussed our study with @CJR, you can read more about it here: https://t.co/Z7sIbT6xRC— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) May 3, 2019 Basically, news outlets refuse to call lies and actually that serves Trump very well.
This is what media outlets should do, in response to the Trump strategy - 1) Ignore any Trump statements that can't be verified as being true. This means not only ignoring the obvious lies, but also ignoring statements that can neither be proven nor disproven. For example, "Obama spied on the Trump Tower." 2) If rule #1 is for some reason violated, have the headline read either "Trump lies when saying X" or "Trump makes unsubstantiated allegation" Of course, do the same to Democratic Presidential candidates too. They should have no worries. And if they do, screw them. We don't want to elect a blue Trump. We don't want a Trump of any color.
30% of 2k+ is 600+. 2/3rds of that = 402+ tweets where the media tweeted false presidential statements. I would have imagined a bigger number. Now that number may be 402+ out of every 50,000+ and not the grand total. Edit, ok I see the 50k are not all related to president comments, 2k out of 50k we're. Ok, 400+ out of 2,000 are false presidential statements that media propagates. That seems more like it. Is not a good record.
Yeah, stop normalizing criminal behavior!!! JUST IN: Treasury Secretary violates federal law from 1924. There. I fixed it for you. https://t.co/8964YVYRPZ— Ciara Torres-Spelliscy (@ProfCiara) May 6, 2019
I'm not sure why not reading an article is okay... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-06/mnuchin-trump-tax-returns?cmpid==socialflow-twitter-politics&utm_medium=social&utm_content=politics&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic Democrats, citing a section of the tax code from 1924, say the law is on their side. The law allows the chairmen of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees and the Joint Committee on Taxation to request the tax returns of any taxpayer and that the Treasury secretary “shall” provide them.
Can you read the headline out loud for me again? Mnuchin Rejects House Democrats' Demand for Trump's Tax Returns
Unfortunately for many it is. Nobody has time for details, we need to be outraged right away. I have been guilty of this many times, so I am throwing rocks from a glass house. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-study/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3e3c83aea112 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nes-and-not-much-else/?utm_term=.0e764d98e892
The headline is online the beginning, but yeah, it's extremely important. The article then proceeds to describe the issue as a "He said, She said" issue, instead of assigning the proper wording, that is that Mnuchin is defying a legal request from congress.
I'm sorry, has this ever been proven in court? You know the answer. Yes, it is a legal request, but the article does say that "The law allows the chairmen of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees and the Joint Committee on Taxation to request the tax returns of any taxpayer and that the Treasury secretary “shall” provide them." So, I'm not sure where your outrage is, because the headline is accurate. And this is also a very widely reported story. Hell, I've been hearing the legal justification for weeks.
The headline is misleading, because it implies that the salient point is that there is a disagreement between the legislative and executive branches. That is false. The salient point is that the executive branch is legally defying the legislative branch. The analogy would be a story about domestic abuse entilted, "Husband and wife disagree."
There will be a legal battle, but that doesn't mean that Mnuchin is not breaking the law. He is and he's trying to find justifications that are not legally valid. Shall means command. Mnuchin must provide Trump's tax returns. And that's exactly how Trumpism works, the same as with the Mueller report that republicans claim, found no collusion and exonerated the president from every crime. But you know that's not true. I think.
Here's something I learned while studying a foreign language. I think Latin, but might have been Russian. Proper English is I or we "shall," but you, he, she, it, and they "will." However, if you use the "wrong" word, it means, as dapip writes, a command. Churchill probably should have written we WILL fight on the beaches, etc.
More of the same: This is an extremely bad tweet about an extremely bad column written by an extremely dim conservative and published by an extremely irresponsible news company. https://t.co/hXCIO1oBKg— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) May 7, 2019 This opinion is written by Keith Koffler. Keith Koffler is a senior editor at the Washington Examiner and editor of a Trump-friendly website. He also feels kindly toward Steve Bannon.Ignore him completely. He’s part of the Op. https://t.co/H5zQ22x9P7— Commander JusticeSeeker (@CommanderBliss) May 4, 2019
Good point. No. The headline is misleading (the "request" is what is misleading - that word should be more like "directive" or "order"). The Barr/Republican spin on the Mueller report is false.
For example pic.twitter.com/1D4e2pi1d8— John Whitehouse (@existentialfish) May 7, 2019 It's worth reading the thread.
Good contrast: Major media outlets failed to rebut President Donald Trump's misinformation 65% of the time in their tweets about his false or misleading comments, my study found. https://t.co/8OV2FGddbn https://t.co/GAY0XZIfBu— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) May 9, 2019
Hillary asked for Ghyna’s help, so there you go, #bothsidesdoit Just watching Peter Baker on MSNBC gaming out the horse race aspects of Trump trying cudgel Ukraine into sliming Trumps opponent. This is a disgrace, criminal abuse of office by Trump and Rudes and a catastrophic press failure in the making. Trump has already gutted all of them.— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) May 10, 2019
I have an issue with this: 92% of false or misleading Trump claims went undisputed when he was speaking at a press gaggle or pool spray. In his comments to the press, he says many, many things, often not on the same topic as the initial issue. Additionally, this also depends on the reporter(s) who know and are willing to state that the Presidents is misleading/lying. The second point is an issue, as the WH has the right to revoke press passes (as was recently done). This can cause both the news reporter and the news organization problems reporting both any particular story as well as longer term effects by not having access to the President. IMO, the issue should not be with the presser, but with the followup articles and reporting (nightly news) as well as debunking the tweets.
Here is what Rep. Tlaib said. “There’s, you know, there’s a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors, Palestinians, who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence, in many ways, had been wiped out, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right? In many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right? And it was forced on them. And so when I think about a one state, I think about the fact that-why can’t we do it in a better way? And I don’t want people to do it in the name of Judaism, just like I don’t want people to use Islam in that way. It has to be done in a way that values around equality and around the fact that you shouldn’t oppress others so you can feel free and safe. Why can’t we all be free and safe together?” My emphasis, to highlight what gives her a calming feeling. Here's what the Washington Examiner (owned by Anschutz) turned it into. "The so-called controversy began on Sunday after the right-wing Washington Examiner picked up on Tlaib’s Friday interview, slapping it with the misleading headline “Rashida Tlaib says thinking of the Holocaust provides her a ‘calming feeling,’ shockingly claims Palestinians created ‘safe haven’ for Jews.”" And the WashEx is considered sort of mainstream and is quoted by GOPers to back up their agenda.
Native Americans most also have that calming feeling that their ancestors provided a safe heaven to European people in the 1500's to 1800's.