Today's GOP

[Loren Pechtel]

https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article255548606.html

Oops--felon not eligible to hold office.

 

[jonatha]

Since he's running for a Federal office I doubt the state can enforce the restriction. Seems logically equivalent to state provisions for term limits, which have already been ruled unconstitutional...

 

[Swammerdami]

Being a criminal might be an electoral plus in a state like Florida. Does he credit his turn-around, assuming he has turned around, to Jesus Christ or Donald Trump?

For me, the most interesting part of the article was:

On the Democrats’ side, election officials were recounting ballots Thursday after Dale V.C. Holness led Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick by only 12 votes, or two-tenths of a percentage point, out of more than 49,000 votes cast.

I guess the Miami Herald editor was home-schooled in math.

 

[Politesse]

What a grand old party.

It's all the family values that really get ya in the feels.

 

[thebeave]

So, I guess the implication here, based on the OP title, is that idiocy and wrongdoing is the domain of the GOP today, but the Democrats are somehow immune to similar behavior?

 

[Politesse]

We've also had our fair share of former and current felons in office, that's for sure! On the other hand, the GOP used to pretend to be the party of morality, law, and order. So there'd be a bit of hypocrisy there, except they've pretty publically thrown all that away anyway by rallying behind a skeezy, philandering, potty-mouthed con artist whose many sins are open for all to see.

 

[Toni]

We've also had our fair share of former and current felons in office, that's for sure! On the other hand, the GOP used to pretend to be the party of morality, law, and order. So there'd be a bit of hypocrisy there, except they've pretty publically thrown all that away anyway by rallying behind a skeezy, philandering, potty-mouthed con artist whose many sins are open for all to see.

Gotta quibble with you about whether or not the former guys' many sins were ALL open for all to see. I'm pretty sure that the surface has just been scratched. Not that some will see them as sins anyway.

 

[Swammerdami]

So, I guess the implication here, based on the OP title, is that idiocy and wrongdoing is the domain of the GOP today, but the Democrats are somehow immune to similar behavior?

Hastert raped little boys. Franken hugged an actress. Same-same.
Trump sold America out to Putin. Clinton told a white-lie about a consensual blow job. Same same.
Hannity tells lies. Maddow presents facts. In our post-truth society this is ... Same same.

Do you guys ever even listen to yourselves? If rational thinkers babbled like the same-same crowd, Tucker Carlson's eyes would literally pop out of their sockets!

 

[ZiprHead]

Franken is thinking of running for office again. Good.

 

[thebeave]

So, I guess the implication here, based on the OP title, is that idiocy and wrongdoing is the domain of the GOP today, but the Democrats are somehow immune to similar behavior?

Hastert raped little boys. Franken hugged an actress. Same-same.
Trump sold America out to Putin. Clinton told a white-lie about a consensual blow job. Same same.
Hannity tells lies. Maddow presents facts. In our post-truth society this is ... Same same.

Do you guys ever even listen to yourselves? If rational thinkers babbled like the same-same crowd, Tucker Carlson's eyes would literally pop out of their sockets!

Cherry pick, much Swammer? You could have put Andrew Cuomo in for Franken, but I guess it wouldn't have made a big splash. And Rachel Maddow presents facts? Even the courts, with a liberal judge have ruled in her lawsuit with OAN that reasonable people would not assume what she says on her show is factual. Apparently our legal system does not consider you to meet the low ball standard of "reasonable".

My beef on this is with the title. So a guy didn't fill out the proper paperwork to run for office, and this is "Today's GOP"? What does that even mean? The GOP is not good with paperwork? Or is it because he is an ex-felon? I thought the left was on the side of giving felon's a second chance, and going easy on them.

 

[thebeave]

Franken is thinking of running for office again. Good.

I agree. He should never have been pushed out in the first place for what he did. An apology should have been enough. It was the height of MeToo and he was really nothing more than a sacrificial lamb.

 

[ZiprHead]

So, I guess the implication here, based on the OP title, is that idiocy and wrongdoing is the domain of the GOP today, but the Democrats are somehow immune to similar behavior?

Hastert raped little boys. Franken hugged an actress. Same-same.
Trump sold America out to Putin. Clinton told a white-lie about a consensual blow job. Same same.
Hannity tells lies. Maddow presents facts. In our post-truth society this is ... Same same.

Do you guys ever even listen to yourselves? If rational thinkers babbled like the same-same crowd, Tucker Carlson's eyes would literally pop out of their sockets!

Cherry pick, much Swammer? You could have put Andrew Cuomo in for Franken, but I guess it wouldn't have made a big splash. And Rachel Maddow presents facts? Even the courts, with a liberal judge have ruled in her lawsuit with OAN that reasonable people would not assume what she says on her show is factual. Apparently our legal system does not consider you to meet the low ball standard of "reasonable".

My beef on this is with the title. So a guy didn't fill out the proper paperwork to run for office, and this is "Today's GOP"? What does that even mean? The GOP is not good with paperwork? Or is it because he is an ex-felon? I thought the left was on the side of giving felon's a second chance, and going easy on them.

Citation, please.

 

[braces_for_impact]

So, I guess the implication here, based on the OP title, is that idiocy and wrongdoing is the domain of the GOP today, but the Democrats are somehow immune to similar behavior?

No, it just means that it's much, much more prevalent in the GOP. The Dems are more of a "status quo" type of criminal organization. I mean, let's not bust out the long list (this is the short list!) of Trump associates under investigation or convicted in the last 6 years or so. That's a lot of typing. There were a couple other times in history like this, namely under Reagan and Nixon, but I believe that would qualify as "yesterday's GOP".

 

[Swammerdami]

And Rachel Maddow presents facts? Even the courts, with a liberal judge have ruled in her lawsuit with OAN that reasonable people would not assume what she says on her show is factual. Apparently our legal system does not consider you to meet the low ball standard of "reasonable".

Interesting. I didn't know this. Cite, anyone?

 

[Enigma]

And Rachel Maddow presents facts? Even the courts, with a liberal judge have ruled in her lawsuit with OAN that reasonable people would not assume what she says on her show is factual. Apparently our legal system does not consider you to meet the low ball standard of "reasonable".

Interesting. I didn't know this. Cite, anyone?

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers

Direct Link to Court Order

 

[Jarhyn]

Wasn't that whole thing with Rachel and OAN them getting slapped for saying not-as-a-joke bald faced some thing that was a lie and then them slapping back at Rachel for a clear joke spoken in well established sarcastic tone as a dig on their reporting?

 

[ZiprHead]

Wasn't that whole thing with Rachel and OAN them getting slapped for saying not-as-a-joke bald faced some thing that was a lie and then them slapping back at Rachel for a clear joke spoken in well established sarcastic tone as a dig on their reporting?

Yes.

“The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation,” the judge added.

The ruling against OAN, which was largely expected, stemmed from a lawsuit initially filed in 2019 in which the right-wing network argued that Maddow made "utterly and completely false" statements about OAN being "paid Russian propaganda" because the network "is wholly financed by the Herrings, an American family, [and] has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government."

The network specifically mentioned a Daily Beast article that Maddow cited on her show, which said that OAN employed "a Kremlin-paid journalist."

However, Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled in May 2020 that anyone who watches Maddow’s show “would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles.”

“Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts," the judge wrote at the time.

"Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying 'I mean, what?') and calling the segment a 'sparkly story' and one we must 'take in stride,' " Bashant added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow?rl=1

 

[Jarhyn]

Wasn't that whole thing with Rachel and OAN them getting slapped for saying not-as-a-joke bald faced some thing that was a lie and then them slapping back at Rachel for a clear joke spoken in well established sarcastic tone as a dig on their reporting?

Yes.

“The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation,” the judge added.

The ruling against OAN, which was largely expected, stemmed from a lawsuit initially filed in 2019 in which the right-wing network argued that Maddow made "utterly and completely false" statements about OAN being "paid Russian propaganda" because the network "is wholly financed by the Herrings, an American family, [and] has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government."

The network specifically mentioned a Daily Beast article that Maddow cited on her show, which said that OAN employed "a Kremlin-paid journalist."

However, Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled in May 2020 that anyone who watches Maddow’s show “would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles.”

“Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts," the judge wrote at the time.

"Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying 'I mean, what?') and calling the segment a 'sparkly story' and one we must 'take in stride,' " Bashant added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow?rl=1

Ok, just making sure it's well laid out not-behind-a-link with all that nasty spin pulled off.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wasn't that whole thing with Rachel and OAN them getting slapped for saying not-as-a-joke bald faced some thing that was a lie and then them slapping back at Rachel for a clear joke spoken in well established sarcastic tone as a dig on their reporting?

Yes.

“The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation,” the judge added.

The ruling against OAN, which was largely expected, stemmed from a lawsuit initially filed in 2019 in which the right-wing network argued that Maddow made "utterly and completely false" statements about OAN being "paid Russian propaganda" because the network "is wholly financed by the Herrings, an American family, [and] has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government."

The network specifically mentioned a Daily Beast article that Maddow cited on her show, which said that OAN employed "a Kremlin-paid journalist."

However, Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled in May 2020 that anyone who watches Maddow’s show “would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles.”

“Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts," the judge wrote at the time.

"Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying 'I mean, what?') and calling the segment a 'sparkly story' and one we must 'take in stride,' " Bashant added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow?rl=1

Ok, just making sure it's well laid out not-behind-a-link with all that nasty spin pulled off.

Well, we can certainly say the thebeaves description of the ruling was, shall we say, inaccurate.

 

[thebeave]

Wasn't that whole thing with Rachel and OAN them getting slapped for saying not-as-a-joke bald faced some thing that was a lie and then them slapping back at Rachel for a clear joke spoken in well established sarcastic tone as a dig on their reporting?

Yes.

“The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation,” the judge added.

The ruling against OAN, which was largely expected, stemmed from a lawsuit initially filed in 2019 in which the right-wing network argued that Maddow made "utterly and completely false" statements about OAN being "paid Russian propaganda" because the network "is wholly financed by the Herrings, an American family, [and] has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government."

The network specifically mentioned a Daily Beast article that Maddow cited on her show, which said that OAN employed "a Kremlin-paid journalist."

However, Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled in May 2020 that anyone who watches Maddow’s show “would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles.”

“Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts," the judge wrote at the time.

"Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying 'I mean, what?') and calling the segment a 'sparkly story' and one we must 'take in stride,' " Bashant added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow?rl=1

Ok, just making sure it's well laid out not-behind-a-link with all that nasty spin pulled off.

Well, we can certainly say the thebeaves description of the ruling was, shall we say, inaccurate.

So what in particular was inaccurate? And would you say that what Swammerdami said, "Rachel Maddow presents facts" IS accurate?