• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the Right Not Understand The Game?

calamity said:
Hearsay can be a named source passing on what he said he or she heard just as much as it can be an unnamed source.
Click to expand...

Of course, but at least someone else can determine whether a named source has simply relayed hearsay. Typically, the unnamed source is described as "an insider" implying that they are relating first hand information rather than mere hearsay.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Just because a source is anonymous, that doesn't automatically mean that what they say is unsubstantiated. But unsubstantiated reports, or "hearsay", usually comes from anonymous sources beyond the scope of responsibility for what they've said.

Someone saying a memo exists that has controversial information in it is far, far less reliable than someone producing that memo, even though both sources can be unnamed. Do you understand the difference? One is substantiated, while the other is not.
Click to expand...

False. You should learn to admit it when you are wrong.

Hearsay is when anyone repeats what they heard someone else say. It makes no difference if it's a named or unnamed source. Period.

What does matter, often, is who made the original statement. If a witness repeats exactly what he heard the defendant say, a judge will allow it--that is allowable hearsay. If a witness repeats what he heard someone else say about what the defendant said, a judge usually will not allow it--that is unallowable hearsay.

Journalism has no such rules. However, they must list the source of the information, including if it is an unnamed source. Named versus unnamed sources have absolutely nothing to do with hearsay. Nothing.
 
calamity said:
Hearsay is when anyone repeats what they heard someone else say. It makes no difference if it's a named or unnamed source. Period.
Click to expand...

So, according to you, so long as one person is communicating something that someone else communicated, then it is hearsay? Just a second-hand report, that is all that makes it hearsay?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
So, according to you, so long as one person is communicating something that someone else communicated, then it is hearsay? Just a second-hand report, that is all that makes it hearsay?
Click to expand...

Not according to me.

hear·say
ˈhirˌsā/Submit
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
"according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
synonyms: rumor, gossip, tittle-tattle, idle talk; More
LAW
the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
"everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay"
 
calamity said:
Not according to me.

hear·say
ˈhirˌsā/Submit
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
"according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
synonyms: rumor, gossip, tittle-tattle, idle talk; More
LAW
the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
"everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay"
Click to expand...



Reporters report information they receive from a source who overheard something worth reporting Your post. Reporting information from someone who overheard something is then hearsay.

Your welcome.
 
My kick today on this Calamity is that the Trump team intentionally created and continues to fan the flames of this game.

Bannon is his chief strategy guy, and happens to be 100% in line with how Trump lays (lies, talks big, etc.).
Bannon and his supporters want, as their goal, to destabilize the government establishment, both the dems and republicans.
Even if Trump had not outright attacked the media in all its forms, except those that love on him, they are intentionally disrupting the government.
If the media reports on this chaos...how is this a conspiracy of the media? They are reporting what the WH is doing, which is specifically what Bannon has claimed he wants the president to do. Note: I do think Trump does this largely naturally..unwittingly. Bannon just is sure to fan the flame and get out of its way on Trump specifically.

Bannon has clearly stated he wants to destabilize the government establishment. <-- why is this the liberals fault, or the medias fault? It's madness. (more destabilization!)

Problem is, if you destabalize we broken system, it can create opportunity for fast change. But if the system wasn't broken, you just ****ed everything up, out of ignorance. My money is on the latter...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Of course, but at least someone else can determine whether a named source has simply relayed hearsay. Typically, the unnamed source is described as "an insider" implying that they are relating first hand information rather than mere hearsay.
Click to expand...

The identity o unnamed sources are on the record and have to pass through the editorial board. They are just not identified by name in the report. A legitimate news org, like WaPo, will not allow someone to be called an "insider" if they are not actually, you know, an insider.
 
holbritter said:
Reporters report information they receive from a source who overheard something worth reporting Your post. Reporting information from someone who overheard something is then hearsay.

Your welcome.
Click to expand...

Which is perfectly fine to use in journalism.
 
Mach said:
My kick today on this Calamity is that the Trump team intentionally created and continues to fan the flames of this game.

Bannon is his chief strategy guy, and happens to be 100% in line with how Trump lays (lies, talks big, etc.).
Bannon and his supporters want, as their goal, to destabilize the government establishment, both the dems and republicans.
Even if Trump had not outright attacked the media in all its forms, except those that love on him, they are intentionally disrupting the government.
If the media reports on this chaos...how is this a conspiracy of the media? They are reporting what the WH is doing, which is specifically what Bannon has claimed he wants the president to do. Note: I do think Trump does this largely naturally..unwittingly. Bannon just is sure to fan the flame and get out of its way on Trump specifically.

Bannon has clearly stated he wants to destabilize the government establishment. <-- why is this the liberals fault, or the medias fault? It's madness. (more destabilization!)

Problem is, if you destabalize we broken system, it can create opportunity for fast change. But if the system wasn't broken, you just ****ed everything up, out of ignorance. My money is on the latter...
Click to expand...

There certainly was not so much wrong with the current system that we need to burn it to the ground. Correct.
 
calamity said:
Serious question asked in the Thread Title. As silly as it sounds, I get a sense that this may be the case though.

People remaining from previous administration, whose job it is to ensure continuity of government, the Right calls them "Obama Holdovers."

people who remain are supposed to be true to their job, and not a political party.

Reporters report information they receive from a source who overheard something worth reporting, the Right calls it "hearsay."

receive?....if someone is leaking information to the press which is in the interest of security that is a crime, hear-say is something put forth as something that is supposed to have happened or said, until evidence supports it, its not fact.

Media sinks their teeth into a story involving Russians having dubious contacts with the campaign advisers who are now some of the highest officials in the White House, the Right calls it "fake news."

the media has been all over the Russia- trump connection allegations for many months now, added that an investigation is in process now, and so far there is nothing which shows an illegal connection.

A president picks a fight with every interest group, intel and law agency and media outlet who is not 100% on his side. When those groups fight back, the Right calls it a "witch hunt."

the media attacks trump and he attacks them back, everyone in the executive branch of government including the intelligence/enforcement part work for the president, he is their boss, they are to carry out the execution of policy and law, they are not there to question the president.

I seriously suspect that these people do not get it. In fact, they are not even in the ball park of "getting it."
Click to expand...

your take - is to say leaks out of the executive branch is acceptable and that the people leaking them have some sort of duty to do that because they should question their boss, who is the president of the united states, and this is false!
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
The identity o unnamed sources are on the record and have to pass through the editorial board. They are just not identified by name in the report. A legitimate news org, like WaPo, will not allow someone to be called an "insider" if they are not actually, you know, an insider.
Click to expand...

That remains to be seen. Using terms like "a source near the White House" (yet no mention of how "near") is fairly subjective. Also, terms like "a former close associate" can mean some person that associated with them quite some time before the news event even occurred.
 
calamity said:
Serious question asked in the Thread Title. As silly as it sounds, I get a sense that this may be the case though.

People remaining from previous administration, whose job it is to ensure continuity of government, the Right calls them "Obama Holdovers."

Reporters report information they receive from a source who overheard something worth reporting, the Right calls it "hearsay."

Media sinks their teeth into a story involving Russians having dubious contacts with the campaign advisers who are now some of the highest officials in the White House, the Right calls it "fake news."

A president picks a fight with every interest group, intel and law agency and media outlet who is not 100% on his side. When those groups fight back, the Right calls it a "witch hunt."

I seriously suspect that these people do not get it. In fact, they are not even in the ball park of "getting it."
Click to expand...

Indeed. It is a game. Its not journalism to repeats a story that can not be verified. Its not journalism to twist the little bit of information into the biggest lies just because your feelings got hurt because you ran an unbelievable horrible candidate and campaign. Thats what tabloids do. Look you even did it here. The media didnt report a story on Russian contact. And the "Right" hasnt called that fake news. The spin that the election was stolen and Trump is colluding with the Russian government is the fake news. Where was the media when Susan Rices story on Benghazi was a lie. You think no one from the inside leaked to them that the administration knew before they said it that it was a lie?
 
Aberration said:
Indeed. It is a game. Its not journalism to repeats a story that can not be verified. Its not journalism to twist the little bit of information into the biggest lies just because your feelings got hurt because you ran an unbelievable horrible candidate and campaign. Thats what tabloids do. Look you even did it here. The media didnt report a story on Russian contact. And the "Right" hasnt called that fake news. The spin that the election was stolen and Trump is colluding with the Russian government is the fake news. Where was the media when Susan Rices story on Benghazi was a lie. You think no one from the inside leaked to them that the administration knew before they said it that it was a lie?
Click to expand...

News stories are verified to various degrees. Editorial boards review the most explosive ones with a fine toothed comb. Saying that they are unverified is disingenuous.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That remains to be seen. Using terms like "a source near the White House" (yet no mention of how "near") is fairly subjective. Also, terms like "a former close associate" can mean some person that associated with them quite some time before the news event even occurred.
Click to expand...

But it's disclosed, and adults can and do weigh them on that relative subjectivity. Typically we'd stay interested partially, but it's usually a "wait and see".

It's only when you add on top of that, Trump routinely and actively behaving in ways that themselves are scandal-worthy (lying via twitter), when the content of his tweet is to call it fake news or to outright deny it, or to say something ELSE that is another hot news story (Obama wiretapped me), that it becomes big news.

In your own freaking post, you more lucidly downplayed anonymous sources than in every Trump tweet, remark, interview, and Spicey tirade, combined. And you think it's not national news that our WH is so incompetent that your random post is 100x better than their "best"? Or worse, they are doing it on purpose, and you're barking up the wrong tree.

They created that crisis, right there. You just created the crisis by evidencing that a few reasonable sentences makes the current administration look entirely inept and insane. And a bat-****-crazy white house, is at *least* as big as the Russia investigation. Which is more scary...that Putin got back at HRC by playing her game better, or that we have a circus in the WH?
 
calamity said:
News stories are verified to various degrees. Editorial boards review the most explosive ones with a fine toothed comb. Saying that they are unverified is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Obviously not. We see it every day. To claim these stories are verified is disingenuous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
calamity said:
Using unnamed sources is not hearsay. I suggest you look up the word "hearsay." Good day.
Click to expand...

You once again prove you do not know the definition of he word.

information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

Un-named sources say x very much fits the definition of hearsay

What they are saying cannot be verified or substantiated.
We are just expected to take their word for it and that is that.

That is the very definition of hearsay.
 
Last edited:
Aberration said:
Obviously not. We see it every day. To claim these stories are verified is disingenuous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Verified with disclaimers included when a detail or two is not 100% reliable. You all just don't like what's being reported is all. So, you try to dismiss it as fake news, hearsay, unnamed sources, or whatever. But the sum total of all the bad press is certainly spot on accurate.
 
Mach said:
But it's disclosed, and adults can and do weigh them on that relative subjectivity. Typically we'd stay interested partially, but it's usually a "wait and see".

It's only when you add on top of that, Trump routinely and actively behaving in ways that themselves are scandal-worthy (lying via twitter), when the content of his tweet is to call it fake news or to outright deny it, or to say something ELSE that is another hot news story (Obama wiretapped me), that it becomes big news.

In your own freaking post, you more lucidly downplayed anonymous sources than in every Trump tweet, remark, interview, and Spicey tirade, combined. And you think it's not national news that our WH is so incompetent that your random post is 100x better than their "best"? Or worse, they are doing it on purpose, and you're barking up the wrong tree.

They created that crisis, right there. You just created the crisis by evidencing that a few reasonable sentences makes the current administration look entirely inept and insane. And a bat-****-crazy white house, is at *least* as big as the Russia investigation. Which is more scary...that Putin got back at HRC by playing her game better, or that we have a circus in the WH?
Click to expand...

Your assumption that I believe or accept Trump's tweeted or stated "facts" is based on what, exactly? Because Trump is a liar (spews nonsense) does not give license to the MSM to reciprocate.
 
calamity said:
Serious question asked in the Thread Title. As silly as it sounds, I get a sense that this may be the case though.

People remaining from previous administration, whose job it is to ensure continuity of government, the Right calls them "Obama Holdovers."

Reporters report information they receive from a source who overheard something worth reporting, the Right calls it "hearsay."

Media sinks their teeth into a story involving Russians having dubious contacts with the campaign advisers who are now some of the highest officials in the White House, the Right calls it "fake news."

A president picks a fight with every interest group, intel and law agency and media outlet who is not 100% on his side. When those groups fight back, the Right calls it a "witch hunt."

I seriously suspect that these people do not get it. In fact, they are not even in the ball park of "getting it."
Click to expand...

I have been thinking, trying to find a way to measure the percentage of the total electorate that are avid Trump supporters. I know according to the exit polls that out of the total 46% of votes Trump received last November, roughly half were pro-Trump voters and half were anti-Clinton voters. But cutting that 46% in half and stating only 23% of the total electorate are avid Trump supporters seems way too easy. I am not sure that would be accurate.

So, it is back to RCP to find out today, how many, what percentage strongly support President Trump. The somewhat support, somewhat not can easily change to the other. But their convictions, feelings toward Trump are not strong and fluctuate. I find out 61% of Republicans strongly approve of Trump. Republicans make up 27% of the electorate. I also find that 22% of independents strongly approve of Trump, independents make up 43% of the electorate. Democrats, 2% strongly approve and they make up 30% of the total electorate. Those who strongly support/approve of Trump comes out to 26.43% of the total electorate. Very close to the 23% of Trump’s total vote he received that wasn’t an anti-Clinton vote. My conclusion is that roughly a quarter of the entire electorate are avid Trump supporters, give or take a couple of points. They will never desert Trump even if he ends up being the worst president in our history.

Using the same system, I came up with 43.09% that strongly disapprove and will never support Trump at all even if he turned out to be the greatest president ever. Those in the middle, the 30.48% of the remaining electorate are the somewhats or don’t know, undecideds. Somewhat approve, support or somewhat disapprove which will move back and forth. The deck is stacked against him. But that should have been expected when the choice came down to two candidates with 60% unfavorables, the dislike factor of both major party candidates. The winner was certain to be disliked by most Americans.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Your assumption that I believe or accept Trump's tweeted or stated "facts" is based on what, exactly? Because Trump is a liar (spews nonsense) does not give license to the MSM to reciprocate.
Click to expand...

Next time Trump tweets this:
Using terms like "a source near the White House" (yet no mention of how "near") is fairly subjective.
Also, terms like "a former close associate" can mean some person that associated with them quite some time before the news event even occurred.

You'll have a point. Until then, what Trump tweets and what runs on MSM are two entirely different things.
Sources that are anonymous != lack of sources and any relation to reality, and a contradiction of the entire thing next week...
 
"Some people are saying..." is one of 45's favorite maneuvers that usually = BS.
 
calamity said:
Not according to me.

hear·say
ˈhirˌsā/Submit
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
"according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
synonyms: rumor, gossip, tittle-tattle, idle talk; More
LAW
the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
"everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay"
Click to expand...

That definition supports what I was saying.

It is different than what you just said, that "Hearsay is when anyone repeats what they heard someone else say. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom