• 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

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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."
 
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...

Both sides believe they are correct. That's all. no big mystery :)
 
"Anonymous sources" are not as good as "named sources". To a point, an unnamed sources is hearsay.

Stories run on uncorroborated sources, removed from further questioning, are not good, solid journalism.

Repeated stories run in this vein, on the same topic, do take on the appearance of grinding an axe.

Trump is no Churchill or anything, but where the press protected and insulated Obama, they are pointedly targeting Trump.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
"Anonymous sources" are not as good as "named sources". To a point, an unnamed sources is hearsay.

Stories run on uncorroborated sources, removed from further questioning, are not good, solid journalism.

Repeated stories run in this vein, on the same topic, do take on the appearance of grinding an axe.

Trump is no Churchill or anything, but where the press protected and insulated Obama, they are pointedly targeting Trump.
Click to expand...

Using unnamed sources is not hearsay. I suggest you look up the word "hearsay." Good day.
 
calamity said:
Using unnamed sources is not hearsay. I suggest you look up the word "hearsay." Good day.
Click to expand...

Well, I have an unnamed source that has some pretty damning information about a DP poster named calamity.

Without knowing what this information is, can we rule out that it is hearsay?
 
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...

Calamity, people remaining from the previous Administration ARE "holdovers."

And "overheard" conversations ARE "hearsay."

Has Trump picked the media fight, or is he unwisely responding? Seems to me that even before the election, the media treated his candidacy as a joke. Do I need to go find that compilation video?

About the "dubious contacts," they remain merely dubious until and unless evidence is produced that proves something beyond "dubious contact."
 
calamity said:
Using unnamed sources is not hearsay. I suggest you look up the word "hearsay." Good day.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that if one of these “holdovers” hears something they think is news worthy then calls a reporter on the phone to pass it on that not hearsay, ok then….

Eventually they are going to find some of these leakers and It’s not going to go well for them or the (D) party.
 
calamity said:
Using unnamed sources is not hearsay. I suggest you look up the word "hearsay." Good day.
Click to expand...

Using any source (named or otherwise) not present to a conversation/act between A and B is hearsay. The memo itself is not hearsay, but someone's relaying (part?) of its content "as they remember it" is hearsay.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
"Anonymous sources" are not as good as "named sources". To a point, an unnamed sources is hearsay.

Stories run on uncorroborated sources, removed from further questioning, are not good, solid journalism.

Repeated stories run in this vein, on the same topic, do take on the appearance of grinding an axe.

Trump is no Churchill or anything, but where the press protected and insulated Obama, they are pointedly targeting Trump.
Click to expand...
I agree they are targeting Trump, but I'm pretty sure there are only two Presidents since WW2 who have been overtly targeted by the press, Nixon and Trump, and both have been purposely and intentionally combative toward the press. Coincidence?
 
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...

What doesn't "the right" get? We knew Trump had no experience but a problematic personality and too little diplomatic potty training. But we gave him the job. Don't cry now or they will think you don't get it.

;)
 
radcen said:
I agree they are targeting Trump, but I'm pretty sure there are only two Presidents since WW2 who have been overtly targeted by the press, Nixon and Trump, and both have been purposely and intentionally combative toward the press. Coincidence?
Click to expand...

True. But also somewhat disturbing.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Well, I have an unnamed source that has some pretty damning information about a DP poster named calamity.

Without knowing what this information is, can we rule out that it is hearsay?
Click to expand...

Look up the word. Hearsay does not require that the source be unnamed.
 
calamity said:
Look up the word. Hearsay does not require that the source be unnamed.
Click to expand...

From Dictionary.com:

1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:
I pay no attention to hearsay.


2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.

Hearsay | Define Hearsay at Dictionary.com
 
radcen said:
I agree they are targeting Trump, but I'm pretty sure there are only two Presidents since WW2 who have been overtly targeted by the press, Nixon and Trump, and both have been purposely and intentionally combative toward the press. Coincidence?
Click to expand...

Here's what gets me sitting on the edge of my chair. The Right does not understand that when picking a fight with everyone, you better be able to finish it. Trump picked a fight he can't close out. And, we see some of that with saber rattling, America is the greatest, bull**** coming from his ignorant Deplorables. They want to fight the world alone.

We can't win that. And, they are too stupid to know it, just like they were too stupid to know Trump cannot win when he picks a fight with the Establishment Republicans, the Media, the Intelligence agencies, the FBI, the courts, the Muslims, the Mexicans, Hillary supporters, Obama supporters, and liberals of all colors. Who could?

I know of another man in history whose supporters felt they could take on the world. It did not end well for them.
 
nota bene said:
It's not going to go well for the West Wing leakers either. At least I hope it won't. New Kushner-Russia Story Stokes Concern of West Wing Leakers | LifeZette
Click to expand...



I get this type of thing has been part of politics for a very long time if not from the birth of our nation. That said, I believe it is now damaging our country and stifling any governance. I also believe true journalism has died for the most part and is now just partisan platform pandering.

There sure is an open spot in the news market for a standards based, fact based and investigative based outlet.

As for the leakers regardless of location, agency or political affiliation, the Queen in Alice in wonderland said it best, Off with their heads.
 
Last edited:
woodsman said:
I get this type of thing has been part of politics for a very long time if not from the birth of our nation. That said, I believe it is now damaging our country and stifling any governance. I also believe true journalism has died for the most part and is now just partisan platform pandering.

There sure is an open spot in the news market for a standards based, fact based and investigative based outlet.

As for the leakers regardless of location, agency or political affiliation, the Queen in Alice in wonderland said it best, Off with there heads.
Click to expand...

lol...one of those leakers is probably Trump himself. Be careful what you wish for. :lol:

BTW, it's their.
 
calamity said:
Look up the word. Hearsay does not require that the source be unnamed.
Click to expand...

But in order not be hearsay that unnamed person must have witnessed the conversation/act and not simply heard (or read?) of a later account of it. The unnamed source can attest to the existence of a memo but cannot vouch for the veracity of (part of?) its alleged content.
 
calamity said:
lol...one of those leakers is probably Trump himself. Be careful what you wish for. :lol:

BTW, it's their.
Click to expand...


Thank you spelling buddy, please don’t leak I misspelled a word, the left lunatics on this board would have a conniption.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But in order not be hearsay that unnamed person must have witnessed the conversation/act and not simply heard (or read?) of a later account of it. The unnamed source can attest to the existence of a memo but cannot vouch for the veracity of (part of?) its alleged content.
Click to expand...

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.
 
nota bene said:
From Dictionary.com:

1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:
I pay no attention to hearsay.


2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.

Hearsay | Define Hearsay at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...

no mention of named versus unnamed sources, is there?
 
joG said:
What doesn't "the right" get? We knew Trump had no experience but a problematic personality and too little diplomatic potty training. But we gave him the job. Don't cry now or they will think you don't get it.

;)
Click to expand...

They clearly do not get that when you elect someone like that, you're going to see him under constant attack, especially when he does stupid things to draw the fire.
 
calamity said:
Look up the word. Hearsay does not require that the source be unnamed.
Click to expand...

Hearsay means not adequately substantiated.

One person saying a thing that cannot be corroborated or followed up on is definitely considered hearsay. Two people saying it lends more credence, but again, anonymous sources beyond the reproach of true investigation doesn't automatically take what they are saying out of the realm of rumor.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Hearsay means not adequately substantiated.

One person saying a thing that cannot be corroborated or followed up on is definitely considered hearsay. Two people saying it lends more credence, but again, anonymous sources beyond the reproach of true investigation doesn't automatically take what they are saying out of the realm of rumor.
Click to expand...

The correct answer here was: you are right, Cal, hearsay has nothing to do with anonymous sources.
 
calamity said:
The correct answer here was: you are right, Cal, hearsay has nothing to do with anonymous sources.
Click to expand...

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