Patterico's Pontifications

5/27/2018

This Open Thread Does Not Exist

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:50 am

Like the senior administration official who was quoted by numerous news organizations, this open thread does not exist. Sure, it appears to. You think you’re looking at it right now. But you are Fake News. President Trump says this thread does not exist, and President Trump does not lie.

Show your support for President Trump by leaving a comment below. Any negative comments about President Trump do not exist.

862 Responses to “This Open Thread Does Not Exist”

  1. This ding does not exist.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  2. I don’t know why Patterico is making such a big deal out of President Trump denying that a person exists. Whose word do we have for it anyway, the Fake News media? I guess Patterico is a tool of CNN and the NYT and WaPo and all the other news organizations who heard this official give the briefing — or CLAIM to. Why can’t we talk about more important things than the President of the United States denying objective reality? Is this really what passes for commentary on this blog these days? I’m going to take Patterico off my favorites until he gets off this obsession with criticizing President Trump just because he told a blatant falsehood about something. If President Trump says something doesn’t exist that is good enough for me.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  3. I know you don’t like blank, but there is no point in criticizing blank. The people voted for blank and blank is in office. So what is your proposed alternative to blank? If nothing, maybe you should stop with the criticism of blank.

    Answer key:

    Blank = literally anyone but Trump: stupid argument

    Blank = Trump: chef kisses fingers *mmWAH*

    Patterico (0f8389)

  4. Heh, you can’t make this stuff up.

    felipe (023cc9)

  5. Except I have a contact who was assigned to go to Singapore, on Friday night.

    narciso (d1f714)

  6. When singer was leaked the Iraq war plan in 2002

    narciso (d1f714)

  7. Trump singled out the “impossible” sentence in his faulty tweet on Saturday. He evidently objected to that word. Technically the aide did not say the June 12 date was “impossible,” but that was the impression the Times reporters came away with, based on the tone and tenor of Thursday’s briefing.

    so yeah the CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda sluts just made crap up

    again

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  8. ikes

    meanwhile dirty dirty slutboy Marco Rubio’s developed a bad case of cowardpig John McCain syndrome

    he can’t get over the fact that he’s not

    and he will never be

    a president of the United States of America

    not the way President Trump is anyways

    maybe in a make pretendsies way (he could have his hot to trot cheerleader wife dress up like Kellyanne!)

    but not the way President Trump is (real president)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. Trump, eggs, sausage and Trump.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  10. Are these all the same reporters that refused to print the actual content of comeys memos?

    narciso (d1f714)

  11. https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/05/not-impossible-anti-trump-media-spends-memorial-day-weekend-beclowning-itself-again/#more-250860

    And, as described thusly in the LI piece, this is too cute a sidestep of journo “on background” ethics, by far:

    “One or more of the reporters at the briefing leaked to other reporters who were not at the briefing the name of the source. This allowed the non-attending reporters to claim they were not violating their ethical duties because they never agreed to the conditions.”

    My dear departed mother would have suggested that this is a case of “the pot calling the kettle black.” [or is that too racist these days?] [or, written with punctuation, … is that, too, racist these days?]

    ColoComment (d5a97a)

  12. Does devlin barrett stop being a potted plant, does isikoff?

    narciso (d1f714)

  13. 8-Happy, if one Google’s Marco Rubio it takes you not only to his Face the Nation transcript, but to some Indian guy running for governor in Michigan (Shri Thanedar)…if he won out, he’d be the 2nd consecutive Democrat governor not a natural born citizen (Jen Gramholm came through the Tunnel or Bridge up there).

    urbanleftbehind (be744c)

  14. Brian Stelter for the win!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  15. Trump, eggs, sausage and Trump.

    harkin (e4ec42) — 5/27/2018 @ 7:26 am

    Trump,Trump,Trump,Trump.
    Trump,Trump,Trump,Trump.
    TRUMP!! Trumpety Trump!!

    Bill H (383c5d)

  16. looks like their primary’s not til August so anything could happen still I guess

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  17. WASHINGTON — Joshua Holt, who traveled to Venezuela from Utah in 2016 to marry a Spanish-speaking Mormon woman but soon found himself jailed and later branded the CIA’s top spy in Latin America, has been set free by the anti-American Maduro government.

    He says he was “overwhelmed with gratitude.”

    Holt and his wife, Thamara Caleno, arrived Saturday evening at Washington Dulles International Airport for a tearful reunion with his parents, Laurie and Jason Holt. A few hours later President Trump welcomed them to the White House, saying it was a “very tough ordeal.” He said Holt had been through more than “most people could endure.”
    __ _

    On the main pages of most of the leading news sites I just checked, this story does not exist.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  18. TRUMP!! Trumpety Trump!!

    I’ve found these Trump posts are much better if you imagine them read aloud by Terry Jones wearing a waitress uniform. Add the touch of the commenters wearing Viking helmets and you’re there.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  19. hateful sleazy u-tosser Mia Love released this statement it must’ve been really hard on her:

    “I am beyond thrilled that Josh Holt is coming home. The President phoned me this morning to share the great news, and I’m grateful to President Trump for listening to the repeated pleas from all of us who care about Josh and working hard to bring Josh back to safety.”

    “Over the nearly 2 years Josh has been in prison, I have worked with the President, Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Bob Corker, Chief of Staff Kelly, Secretary Pompeo, Foreign Relations’s Staff, the State Department and many others who all came together to bring Josh Home. This was a team effort for Josh.”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  20. Harkin, I just looked. It’s the third story story on the MSNBC site, is included lower down among “More Top Stories” on the Washington Post, and linked as a “Top Story” on the NY Times site.

    It is absent from CNN’s main page. They do have it, but you have to look way down on their “World” news page.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  21. I’ve found these Trump posts are much better if you imagine them read aloud by Terry Jones wearing a waitress uniform. Add the touch of the commenters wearing Viking helmets and you’re there.

    harkin (e4ec42) — 5/27/2018 @ 8:29 am

    “…..but I’ve come here for an argument!”
    “Ah- this is Abuse.”

    Bill H (383c5d)

  22. Was not on Times main page just a while ago (from the link at Drudge) nor on CNN or NBC from same.

    Still not at those three. We must have different interwebs.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  23. Trumpalot

    We’re readers of teh Patterico blog
    We often jump like frogs.
    We read teh posts from our steamed host
    Like morning slop for hogs
    We dine well here in Trumpalot.
    We eat ham and jam and spam a lot.
    We’re readers of teh Patterico blog
    We often jump like frogs.
    But many posts from teh steamed host
    That are quite simply laughable

    And Stelter weighs a ton
    Writes like Haberman
    Between the lines and we read teh signs
    Teh man’s become undone
    It’s a busy life in Trumpalot.

    They’ll have to push his pram a lot.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  24. On Times Mobile main page (link from Drudge)

    Top stories (each line is a separate story)

    Ireland can now kill babies, rejoice
    Up close look at Ireland miracle
    Dems and CA house races
    N Korea Kim
    N Korea Kim may deal but only because he has to
    Morgan Freeman
    Trump ‘s war on law enforcement
    Criminal justice overhaul
    Trump ‘s ‘does not exist’ tweet

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  25. But it’s not as non-existent as all the news shows featuring TX school shooting survivors saying they still support the 2nd amendment.

    Kind of interesting on how Parkland gun control kids got the Beatles treatment but student survivors with differing views are nowhere.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  26. I think the Parkland kids were willing to be used, and come from a more lefty area than most. Whereas others like the Santa Fe kids are probably more interested in getting on with their lives.

    As for the NY Times, look further down under “More Top Stories”. If you think that far down doesn’t qualify for main page status, I won’t object.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  27. Crimethink is not allowed even if its the valedictorian who believes it.

    narciso (4d270a)

  28. The Colombian election featuring a sensible candidate vs a foolish one, also using prominently noted.

    narciso (4d270a)

  29. “As for the NY Times, look further down under…..”

    I will agree that it’s not as low as the Liverpool goalie.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  30. one of the Parkland kids – the creepy fascist little turd one

    he’s got a viciously nasty fbi turd-daddy

    and the trashy men and women of the FBI believe America, properly configured, should be an oppressive police state not unlike leggy meggy’s Britain

    and you can’t have a proper police state with armed citizens (knives are next)

    so he volunteered his weak-minded son to the compliant CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda sluts to make this happen

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  31. That being said, going to Venezuela is a dodgy deal, but we aren’t meant to preAch to the confortable.

    narciso (4d270a)

  32. Well, Holt was a) a missionary and 2)went there in 2016, when they still had toilet paper.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  33. Venezuela doesn’t have any food

    they are a foodless people

    I’m immune to the charms of this culture

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  34. I ate some bread and drank some wine at a Mass. I was told Jesus made Himself a part of these. Of course, my betters know He does not exist except as a crutch in the weak minds of needy people.

    Ed from SFV (b95465)

  35. My statement that this thread does not exist is kinda true because many people do not read this blog and so to them it doesn’t. Three raspberries to the librul media for missing this obvious point which makes me a total truth teller.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  36. “It’s appropriate this Memorial Day weekend to salute the retiring NSA director, Admiral Mike Rogers, for courageously standing up against the Obama Administration and the intelligence apparatus, risking all to blow the whistle on the illegal sharing of FISA information on the part of those working to aid Hillary and defeat Trump. A full timeline of his actions is detailed here:

    November 2015-April 2016 – The FBI and DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) uses private contractors to access raw FISA information using “To” and “From” FISA- 702(16) & “About” FISA-702(17) queries.
    March 2016 – NSA Director Rogers becomes aware of improper access to raw FISA data.
    April 2016 – Rogers orders the NSA compliance officer to run a full audit on 702 NSA compliance.
    April 18 2016 – Rogers shuts down FBI/NSD contractor access to the FISA Search System.
    April-September 2016 – Rogers continues his investigation.
    September 26 2016 – DOJ’s NSD Head John Carlin files the Government’s proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications. The filing does not disclose the FISA Abuses. Carlin is aware of Rogers’ compliance review. The 2016 certifications are scheduled for Court approval on October 26, 2016.
    September 27 2016 – Carlin announces he is resigning. Mary McCord will later assume his position.
    October 15, 2016 – Carlin formally leaves the NSD.
    Mid-October 2016 – DNI Clapper submits a recommendation to the White House that Director Rogers be removed from the NSA. Clapper’s effort fails.
    October 20 2016 – Rogers is briefed by the NSA compliance officer on the Section 702 NSA compliance audit and “About” query violations.
    October 21 2016 – Rogers shuts down all “About Query” activity. Rogers reports the activity to DOJ and prepares to go before the FISA Court.
    October 21 2016 – DOJ & FBI seek and receive a Title I FISA probable cause order authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. At this point, the FISA Court is unaware of the Section 702 violations.
    October 24 2016 – Rogers verbally informs the FISA Court of Section 702(17) violations.
    October 26 2016 – Rogers formally informs the FISA Court of 702(17) violations in writing.
    October 26, 2016 – The FISA Court refuses to formalize the 2016 Section 702 certifications. A complete overhaul of Section 702 processes ensues.
    November 17 2016 (morning) – Rogers travels to meet President-Elect Trump and his Transition Team in Trump Tower. Rogers does not inform DNI James Clapper.
    November 17 2016 (evening) – Trump Transition Team announces they are moving all transition activity to Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey.”

    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/the_great_unmasking.html#ixzz5Git4nYxV

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  37. “A lot of people say” this thread doesn’t exist…

    Dave (445e97)

  38. Camera Hogg doing his part to undermine the Constitution is a big deal. That the media keeps pushing him because it’s their agenda makes everything they do suspect.

    Gell-Mann Syndrome applies.

    NJRob (b00189)

  39. Tonight on Hannity: Giuliani reiterates claims that this thread does not exist, but admits he has read it.

    Dave (445e97)

  40. there’s no hannity tonight

    that’s just more fake news

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  41. Kishnevi: you prompted me to check news sites and I’m not really seeing much about Holt.

    On the MSN fake home page I get when I open a new tab however one of the Top Stories is about 220,000 lbs off SPAM being recalled.

    It kinda came full circle in about an hour.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  42. Camera” Hogg.

    That’s the best nick I’ve heard this week…..along with one other, seeing a story about Shaun King smearing a police officer with false rape charges and one of the commenters referring to King as “Talcum X”

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  43. Trump and the media have a really sick relationship.

    nk (dbc370)

  44. nk, this is what happened to the media.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNAQ9lbe3kw

    They chose Trump.

    Simon Jester (491cd3)

  45. Yes he extorted publix into silence, you see how it works simon?

    narciso (d1f714)

  46. They will not let you be uninvolved

    https://spectator.org/the-london-to-langley-spy-ring/

    narciso (d1f714)

  47. Meanwhile….

    The Daily Beast
    @thedailybeast
    Stormy Daniels accepts key to West Hollywood from mayor who cost West Hollywood $500K in sexual misconduct settlement

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  48. The journal spends a whole column on the hell that is Venezuela, without referring to Marxism.

    narciso (d1f714)

  49. “Yes he extorted publix into silence, you see how it works simon?”

    — –
    He got Publix to halt political contributions, at least momentarily.
    __ _

    Stephen Miller
    @redsteeze
    Those donations include gun control groups, same sex marriage support groups and Planned Parenthood. Awesome work Team Hogg!

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  50. @23. =Haiku!= Gesundheit!

    ***** ROFLMAO

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  51. This is an interesting “kerfluffle” on a site and from a host who regularly writes that “words have meanings”, and ignoring a word or two can be deemed a “misrepresentation” of that the author said.

    So, lets parse out what happened here — and I’m working off CNN story since the NYT story is behind their paywall, and I don’t subscribe.

    1. You had a background briefing by the WH press shop on the off-again, on-again issues with the Nork Summit. One rule of the briefing was that the WH Aide who gave the briefing was not to be named in any reporting, but would simply be referred to as a WW official.

    2. In discussing the potential for the summit with the Norks to be “on-again”, CNN reported that the WH official “downplayed the likelihood of the summit proceeding on course”, which is presumably a reference to the June 12 date. The actual language quoted by CNN was as follows:

    The ball is in North Korea’s court right now, and there’s really not a lot of time. We’ve lost quite a bit of time that we would need,” the official said. “But there’s a certain amount of actual dialogue that needs to take place at the working level with your counterparts to ensure that the agenda is clear in the minds of those two leaders when they sit down.”

    “June 12th,” the official said, “is in 10 minutes.”

    3. The CNN story quoted Trump several times saying June 12 was still possible, but much remained to be done. Def. Sec. Mattis was quoted as saying the summit may be “back on.” Sarah Sanders is quoted as saying the June 12 date is “certainly a possibility.”

    4. The controversy is about how the NYT reported the briefing. And, so far as I can tell, this quote in the CNN story is a quote from the NYT story and NOT a quote of the offical — in other words, its CNN quoting only the NYT reporters’ words:

    The Times wrote: “On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.”

    So, what Trump called out in his tweet that is now the subject of press attacks — and the host’s as well — was the claim by the NYT authors that a WH Official doing the briefing said the June 12 date was “impossible.”

    So, has anyone produced a quote from the WH official where he/she used the work “impossible“???? The CNN story seems to suggest not, and confirms that the WH official did not say in the briefing that June 12 was “impossible”, although that’s an impression that one might have taken away — if you started with a pre-conceived notion about whether the WH was sending out mixed-signals.

    So, if no one has a quote of the WH official using the word “impossible”, then I think Trump has a point. Since no WH Official said the June 12 date was “impossible”, the NYT reporters claiming that there was a WH Official who said the June 12 date was “impossible” is an example of the NYT reporters making up an imaginary WH Official to hang that word on so their characterization of the briefing fit their story’s narrative.

    Semantics?? Sure it is.

    But this is the press corps that has debated the difference between a “spy” and an “informant”

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  52. Facts are a stubborn thing, swc. But, each message receiver creates their own construct, right?

    https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1000565368761483264

    Ed from SFV (b95465)

  53. god bless you Mr. shipwreck

    your endeavors are surely a piece with His plan

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  54. In fact, journalist Yashar Ali has posted to Twitter the audio of the briefing, and its quite clear that the quoted language in the CNN story is correct, and that Trump is correct — no WH official said that June 12 is “impossible”, and that is what the NYT story reported.

    So, who is the NYT source for its report that June 12 is “impossible”? Do they have one, or did the reporters make that up??

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  55. we spend our days chasing unicorns and puyallups

    https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1000831571836973056

    narciso (d1f714)

  56. Great post mr wrecked.

    It’s almost like tuning in to a news channel to see the outrage and then waiting for the facts to spill to see what really happened.

    This really seems not much different than Trump being given koi food and reports saying he stupidly/gracelessly/disrespectfully dumped the entire box in the pond. What you see may have no connection to reality.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  57. the NYT made it up and all the CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda sluts are trying to cover the sun with one finger

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  58. If in fact they did make it up, I’m sure it wasn’t to smear the Trump admin.

    Using the Times logic about the govt. spy in the campaign, I’d imagine it was to help Trump in the rather difficult negotiations w NK.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  59. @58. Our Captain knows his audience; cheeseburger energized and ever the showman he endlessly entertains, eh, Mr. Feet!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  60. Using the Times logic about the govt. spy in the campaign, I’d imagine it was to help Trump in the rather difficult negotiations w NK.

    :)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  61. 57 — but this is a perfect example of how “a lie gets around halway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.” Winston Churchill.

    A few dozen news outlets have already set the narrative here that Trump denied the existence of an actual source, when in fact Trump has it exactly right — the actual source didn’t say what the NYT says he did.

    So, is tthe NYT going to correct — words have meaning you know — and “impossible” is distinct from words like “difficult”, or “improbable”, or “unlikely”. All of those would have been consistent with what the briefer said — and more importantly from the viewpoint of their article, they would have been consistent with what Trump has been saying for 3 days.

    BUT, that wouldn’t have let the NYT run the story with the POV it wanted to advance — that Trump and his staff weren’t on the same page — and MOST IMPORTANTLY, as another example of Trump not listening to his staff or simply being an all-purpose simpleton who doesn’t understand what is involved.

    Do I have that about right never-Trumpers?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  62. Papadopoulos’s reference to Clinton material was vague, Downer suggested.

    “He didn’t say dirt; he said material that could be damaging to her. No, he said it would be damaging. He didn’t say what it was.”

    just the news that the Russians *had* information on piggy-britches would in itself be damaging since she’d been grossly negligent and put a whole crapload of classified information out on the internet for anybody to steal

    granted, the hot and horny men and women of the sleazy fbi wouldn’t have cared

    but real Americans would have thought it was damaging for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  63. and downer is a board director with haklyt which has interesting ties to a principle player in uranium one, mr ablazyov,

    narciso (d1f714)

  64. what this says is the foppish Downer knows the dirty dirty FBI coup he bumbled into like a drunk-ass kangaroo is failing and dying and suppurating and rotting on the vine, and he’s trying like hell to fix his blunder and save the penal colony some grave embarrassment

    he *thought* he could trust the hot and horny men and women of the fbi to execute with competence

    he met with dirty fbi dildo-slut Bill Priestap and received every assurance!

    crikey! bad call there downsy-do

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  65. downer is their john Kerry without the medals, capische,

    https://twitter.com/KevinDaleyDC/status/1000774840054353920

    narciso (d1f714)

  66. does anybody really give a handful of warm poop who killed Bobby Kennedy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  67. poor Anne Applebaum

    menopause has not been kind

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  68. no wonder they locked up robinson,

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rotherham-politicians-and-police-abused-girls-7lzw88zt80m

    well her books on the iron curtain and the Ukrainian famine have been very good,

    narciso (d1f714)

  69. yes yes i used to have respect for her

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  70. no I don’t think you do, now you would think bureau counterintelligence would be doing some productive work, then again the real alex parrish wouldn’t be covering for her husband, mr. dodd,

    narciso (d1f714)

  71. Warning for Col. Haiku
    Before clicking this link, take a stiff drink. And have a second ready as medicine after you click it.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/corbredus/status/1000852821464551430
    It’s kind of from the Lovecraftian realm of Things That Should Never Exist In This Dimension.

    Kishnevi (9dfc8c)

  72. yuck yuck yuck

    did you see how Amazon turdlord Jeffy Bezos personally released a statement about The Expanse?

    i know you saw it cause i linkered it

    and now today we have this

    Without divulging details about the new generations of powerful rockets, spacecraft and landing vehicles he envisions will be necessary to establish such permanent outposts, Mr. Bezos made an impassioned argument for accelerating private space travel. He said future generations won’t be able to survive on earth without expanding into other parts of the solar system.

    so..

    how is that not creepy

    bad touch bad touch

    stranger danger all up in it

    why does Amazon turdlord Jeffy Bezos have to make everything dirty

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  73. the real alex parrish

    i could only get through the first 4 episodes i think

    it just had that broadcast network stink on it way too much

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  74. SOOOOO…

    Jeff Bezos, who has a company dedicated to colonizing the Solar System

    just bought a show about human beings… colonizing the Solar System

    that’s kinda creepy

    how is that not creepy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  75. he wants his hands on the protomolecule, what could go wrong?

    narciso (d1f714)

  76. exactly !

    he is Mao and Mao is he

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  77. 72… that is an abomination, kishnevi!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  78. does anybody really give a handful of warm poop who killed Bobby Kennedy

    When after all it was you and me.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  79. The Solar System does not exist. The NYT made it up.

    nk (dbc370)

  80. they lie a LOT

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  81. “It’s kind of from the Lovecraftian realm of Things That Should Never Exist In This Dimension.

    Thanks so much for posting that.

    #gamerecognizegame is awesome

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  82. I disagree. That Corveagle (Eaglette?) is Hillbilly Awesome to the nth power. But I don’t think it’s real, unfortunately. The NYT photo-shopped it.

    nk (dbc370)

  83. Heh, you can’t make this stuff up.

    felipe (023cc9) — 5/27/2018 @ 6:18 am

    Turns out you can. Please see swc’s homework.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  84. He was a Palestinian who worked for a mobsters racetrack, that’s not even one of degree of Kevin bacon, even Dan molder came to that realization.

    narciso (d1f714)

  85. Yes its not ‘your day, your month, or even your year’

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AsheSchow/status/1000863907525922823?p=v

    narciso (d1f714)

  86. dirty slutboy Marco Rubio wants us all to live in an america where the secret police spy on political campaigns

    maybe him and his bimbo wife would be happier back in cuba

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  87. #happierbackincuba

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  88. There is no Cuba. The NYT made it up.

    If the media were not unimaginative and humorless assholes, they could turn this into a month-long yuck-fest about Trump, by inserting into every story “which we’re certain President Trump will say does not exist”. For example: “Coming up, the weather forecast for Los Angeles, which we’re certain President Trump will say does not exist.”

    nk (dbc370)

  89. but President Trump was right

    the New York Times just made crap up

    and the CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda sluts all they did was lick it up (licklick)

    President Trump tells the truth but Jake Tapper lies and lies

    advantage: President Trump

    The power of truth!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  90. But sadly they are, unlike soylo which people wish had been eaten by a krait dragon. You know emilia Clarke is becoming the Katherine heigl of film.

    narciso (d1f714)

  91. Forget it, Feet.

    It’s Chinatown.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  92. 1. Lot of flutter about a minor issue, one of optics, not substance.

    2. More of the woe is me. Don’t remember that from 2008.

    3. I find ‘it’s even possible’ to be consistent with ‘not impossible’. WH was not saying the summit itself or even the date was back on. Else they would have announced it. They did not even make a statement that it was more likely than not. Bunch of silly gotcha games. CNN and Patterico can do better.

    4. Lacking a transcript, we can’t know exactly what was said. So Patterico shouldn’t be so quick to jump to reporter side. But it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if the official said 12JUN was unlikely and then CNN ran it as impossible. These guys are mostly fluffy, not analysts, not careful, and getting paid to move the column inches fast.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  93. poor emilia she got butt-raped by kathleen kennedy and can’t even get any metoo mileage out of it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  94. 3, 4. Or NYT, not CNN.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  95. Nope. It’s spin machine versus spin machine. There was an anonymous source which was misquoted. That’s why I said this is a sick relationship between John Barron and the media. Like Al and Peggy Bundy. A constant competition of who can make the other look worse while still feeding and propping up each other.

    nk (dbc370)

  96. “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns… They literally know nothing.” Ben Rhodes – Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications for U.S. President Barack Obama

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  97. That was very good communications strategy by Ben Rhodes. It worked. Trump should take a page from Rhodes’ book and only talk to 27-year old reporters whose only political experience consists of being around political campaigns and will unquestioningly parrot everything he says.

    nk (dbc370)

  98. “That was very good disinformation strategy by Ben Rhodes.

    Fyp

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  99. President Trump was right though

    the source person guy never said it was impossible

    the New York Times lied

    this is like in that book where they wanna know how many fingers

    i think it’s called the finger book

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  100. Errm, isn’t “Strategic Communications” a euphemism for “lies and spin” to begin with? Why should such an office even be legal and paid for by the taxpayers?

    nk (dbc370)

  101. hello this is the same government what funds “the navy”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  102. BT
    @back_ttys
    Journalists :”Remember when the President’s biggest scandal was wearing a tan suit?”

    Same journalists: “THESE PICTURES FROM 2014 ARE AN OUTRAGE!”

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  103. 1. You had a background briefing by the WH press shop on the off-again, on-again issues with the Nork Summit. One rule of the briefing was that the WH Aide who gave the briefing was not to be named in any reporting, but would simply be referred to as a WW official.

    […]

    So, what Trump called out in his tweet that is now the subject of press attacks — and the host’s as well — was the claim by the NYT authors that a WH Official doing the briefing said the June 12 date was “impossible.”

    […]

    Do I have that about right never-Trumpers?

    shipwreckedcrew

    SWC,

    Trump claimed this person didn’t exist. That wasn’t truthful. If Trump wanted to be a stickler about the content of these briefings, he wouldn’t have included the needless stipulations about not permitting them to be recorded.

    It seems sometimes Trump is so obviously wrong that there’s no serious effort to defend him. Just some deflection, some squirrels!!!. It’s easier to just laugh it off and admit Trump claimed a person ‘does not exist’ when they do exist. Had Trump said ‘I was misquoted about ‘impossible” I still wouldn’t believe him, but it wouldn’t be nearly as amusing.

    this is a guy who brags about groping women. Why is there any effort to defend him from silly stuff like this?

    But at any rate, no, you do not have it right. The joke wasn’t that the NYT used the word “impossible.” It’s that Trump lied about the existence of this staffer, knowing it was a lie and that it would be proven false immediately. It’s remarkable.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  104. Stelter, you mean that guy who ridiculed White House typos?
    https://mobile.twitter.com/amber_athey/status/1000767809016795138/photo/1

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  105. You know who was very big on anonymous briefings to the press? J. Nancy Swish, the first Director of the FBI. He didn’t want any other name except his associated with the FBI. He fired Melvin Purvis for it — getting his name in news stories about the FBI’s operations.

    nk (dbc370)

  106. I like April Ryan. You go, girl! Ridicule is mankind’s 27th most potent weapon. That cartoon of Trump and Kim showing their “missiles” is priceless.

    nk (dbc370)

  107. The joke is the new York times, that rumor was pushed by the bootleggers moll, an ex?? oss operative, and the crazy cat they based Kevin bacons character in jfk.

    narciso (d1f714)

  108. They dogged him for not going after the mob, whereas anslinger who did go after him from the time of the prohibition bureau, to the precursor of the dea

    narciso (d1f714)

  109. April Ryan is a national treasure.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  110. That’s talcum, creepy hamas girl and the guy who isn’t in ironman

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/27/shaun-king-linda-sarsour-trump-immigration-obama

    narciso (d1f714)

  111. I hope April has no children.
    And I don’t care if she is a lesbian.

    mg (9e54f8)

  112. twitchy is why we need to unban the r word

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  113. Lacking a transcript, we can’t know exactly what was said. So Patterico shouldn’t be so quick to jump to reporter side.

    Wouldn’t matter. Patterico believes NYT lies even when transcript proves they lied. He likes their lies.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  114. 117.

    Better watch out, Beldar, the elder statesman of the forum, wants you to change your name. I’m just saying. 😉

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  115. Off topic (point of this thread): the James player from Cleveland looks good.

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  116. 118.

    Not one word of truth in there. Just sayin’. 😉

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  117. 117 – audio recording of the briefing has been put up on Twitter. The WH official did NOT say June 12 date was “impossible” as NYT said he did.

    So NYT writers must have been referring to some other “WH Official” who spoke only to them, or they made it up.

    Shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  118. So which stafffer said having the talks on June 12 “would be impossible”?

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  119. Swc, as always you miss the point.
    Trump did not claim the background briefing was misquoted or misinterpreted or paraphrased wrong.

    He said the briefing didn’t happen. He did not say the official was misquoted. He said the official did not exist.

    Kishnevi (871225)

  120. Amazing.
    I’m the aspie. I’m the one who is supposed to to sieze on trivial details…
    But here it’s the NTs who are doing it.

    Kishnevi (871225)

  121. He said the person quoted in the press as saying the talks on June 12 “would be impossible” did not exist.

    If someone from the White House actually said that, name him/her.

    Or do they not exist?

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  122. Trump could say that New York City did not exist and his supporters would claim he was telling the truth.

    This particular tweet is atypical for him, though. It’s more weasel-like than it is bald-faced lie. And I can tell you the reason — it was made at 8:21 am, before he had started sundowning, and he could still formulate nuance.

    nk (dbc370)

  123. Always trust content…
    From
    Legal insurrection.

    Jb (7c7075)

  124. Impossible is a definitive statement, not conditional, not off the record.

    narciso (d1f714)

  125. He said the briefing didn’t happen. He did not say the official was misquoted. He said the official did not exist.

    Nope.

    The Failing @nytimes quotes “a senior White House official,” who doesn’t exist, as saying “even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.” WRONG AGAIN! Use real people, not phony sources.

    Trump said the “senior White House official” didn’t exist. And, as far as a “senior White House official” who said the meeting was impossible, well, that guy doesn’t exist.

    Maybe there’s a guy who said something else, or maybe the NYT made it all up, but there is no guy who said what they say was said. Just more NYT lies.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  126. 130
    If the CNN transcipt is correct (I didn’t see the original NYT article) NYT did not directly quote anyone, so Trump’s tweet is incorrect straight out of the box.

    But your overall defence is like that of the man who, accused of parricide, defender himself by saying the victim was merely his stepfather.

    Kishnevi (871225)

  127. The NYTimes said this:

    “On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.”

    Please just name the WH official who said this, or admit when the Times says someone says something, the person they say said it may not exist.

    Name the name or continue the ride.

    https://media1.tenor.com/images/286ddc0775f7e6a0cedee9c979c5f256/tenor.gif?itemid=5594922

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  128. So NYT writers must have been referring to some other “WH Official” who spoke only to them, or they made it up.

    Shipwreckedcrew

    Hilarious effort if you think about it. SWC is very intelligent so I think he’s being satirical, making fun of deranged Trump fans.

    And, as far as a “senior White House official” who said the meeting was impossible, well, that guy doesn’t exist.

    Yeah, you’re going to actually need to back up your claims at some point. Not only is your logic hilariously silly, and a copy of a talking point repeated by every loyal Trump fanboy in the world, but it’s also not been backed up by any evidence.

    The White House demanded secrecy about who this official is and insisted no one record this briefing. Burden of proof is on you guys, then. You know, the side with the shady secrecy that just got caught lying
    * as this briefing did in fact happen, and
    *therefore a person giving the briefing obviously did exist, and
    *the claims he didn’t exist were a lie, and
    *the defense that ‘well you can’t prove you didn’t misquote him because we insisted on no recording so therefore misquotes = nonexistence’ therefore
    all your side’s claims lack any evidence at all.

    Maybe there’s a guy who said something else

    anon.y.mous, then maybe Trump was lying. Since he didn’t say the guy was misquoted, he said the guy giving the secret shady briefing didn’t exist.

    When Trump’s own fans are admitting Trump is a liar, as Anon.Y.Mous is, then I repeat my question from before: why bother with this? It’s silly.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  129. The Times wrote: “On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.”

    That is CNN, linked by Patterico in the OP. That’s the NYT, putting their words in someone else’s mouth, a favorite practice of theirs. It is a lie. And, it’s the point of the whole thread. And the point of Trump’s tweet.

    But your overall defence is like that of the man who, accused of parricide, defender himself by saying the victim was merely his stepfather.

    Care to explain that? What is Trump’s crime that I’m overlooking? Oh yeah. I forgot. He is still guilty of being Trump.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  130. The funniest part is that it’s very likely Trump’s nonexistent briefing guy did say the June 12 date was impossible. Why else would the White House engage in this theater? What possible reason is there to think there was a misquote? And what a silly thing to lie about.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  131. . It is a lie. And, it’s the point of the whole thread. And the point of Trump’s tweet.

    Back it up. Back up your claims. Provide the quotes showing there was a misquote. This is apparently a huge deal to you, so you obviously have some kind of evidence.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  132. Yeah, you’re going to actually need to back up your claims at some point. Not only is your logic hilariously silly, and a copy of a talking point repeated by every loyal Trump fanboy in the world, but it’s also not been backed up by any evidence.

    Did you read the CNN piece that Patterico linked?

    Trump singled out the “impossible” sentence in his faulty tweet on Saturday. He evidently objected to that word. Technically the aide did not say the June 12 date was “impossible,” but that was the impression the Times reporters came away with, based on the tone and tenor of Thursday’s briefing.

    The relevant sentence is the one that starts with the word “Technically”. Technically is CNN-speak for the NYT is lying its collective ass off.

    Now, the question is, do you have the balls to admit you were wrong, or do you continue to pretend the truth is a lie?

    I know which way I’m betting.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  133. Mr. Dustin this is not the hill

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  134. Mr. Dustin this is not the hill

    happyfeet

    LOL of course it isn’t. There is no hill though. No one is seriously arguing about whether or not Trump lied about this guy not existing. It’s just funny watching the various Trump guys all say, in unison, a stupid defense that ‘well it’s not a lie to say someone doesn’t exist or that a briefing never occurred if we pretend a misquote happened’.

    I know it’s very important to Trump fans to project their frustrations onto Trump’s critics though so I don’t want to take that from you.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  135. President Trump has announced via Twitter the U.S. advance team has arrived in North Korea to position for a possible June 12th summit between President Trump and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un.

    Some might say this is impossible.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  136. BS – provide the name of the person who told reporters (as per the Times) that talks on June 12 “would be impossible”.

    If you can’t, that person may not exist.

    The Times got caught fabricating a statement. Not having it in quotes takes nothing from the fact they reported an official “told” them this.
    If they’d just said “implied that talks on June 12 would be difficult to arrange” then they wouldn’t have a dish load of egg on their face and normally sane commenters here would not be defending egregious reporting.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  137. President Trump didn’t lie though

    The New York Times lied

    and look

    we had 8 years of food stamp before Mr. President Trump and so we know

    WE KNOW

    the media is supposed to tell the truth (primary role)

    the president mostly says stuff like if you like your insurance you can keep it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  138. The relevant sentence is the one that starts with the word “Technically”. Technically is CNN-speak for the NYT is lying its collective ass off.

    Now, the question is, do you have the balls to admit you were wrong, or do you continue to pretend the truth is a lie?

    The New York Times article did not actually offer a direct quotation, therefore your argument is absurd. Both CNN and NYT agree that the “impossible” summary of the briefing “was the impression the Times reporters came away with, based on the tone and tenor of Thursday’s briefing.” Your own source states “It’s a flagrant example of Trump’s problem with the truth.” Those things I’m using that are like double-apostrophes are called quotation marks and are what the article you are pretending supports your argument actually said. Quotation marks are also what you would need to prove your case. Prove your case.

    Your entire argument that the NYT’s summary using the word “impossible” and not as a direct quote therefore justifies Trump lying about the existence of the briefing is obvious dishonesty on your part. Even if you were right (and you have been proven wrong) it would not justify Trump’s lie at all.

    I’m very used to Trump’s fans projecting their mischaracterizations and lies onto Trump critics. It’s just funnier today than most days. No surprise that you have wrapped up masculinity in this. Must be tough having those issues upstairs, man.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  139. hello america

    whatever President Trump is doing with North Korea

    it’s… hello? number one

    exponentially more than food stamp ever did (he hated jews and knew the nokos were helping iran with their israel genocide project)

    and … number two

    only necessary cause the mattis-fag military has nothing to contribute as far as solutions go

    and so (dot dot dot)

    I raise a glass to Mr. President Trump and his lovely wife Melania

    and if you wonder where the talks go

    ask a CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda slut to explain ya

    but eight years went by

    and food stamp’s lie?

    strategic patience!

    (persian nukes make jews die)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  140. They don’t bother with quotation marks, that the whole point of ‘gorilla channel’

    narciso (d1f714)

  141. President Trump didn’t lie though

    The New York Times lied

    Sorry charlie, but the very source you, SWC, and anon.y.mous are claiming proves your case actually says the NYT actually did come away with the impression that the date was impossible. Since the NYT never offers a direct quote, the crying about a misquote is BS.

    Trump lied to the American people repeatedly about this, demanding the Times not use a “phony source” when Trump knew that he had provided the source himself under the condition the source be kept anonymous. Apparently it is a regular practice for the White House to demand its sources be kept anonymous at the same time the administration criticizes anonymous sources as fake news.

    Trump’s claim that the June 12 timeline can’t happen, because there simply isn’t enough time, is reasonably paraphrased as impossible. Since the NYT offered no direct quote, the claim of a misquote is yet another lie.

    And lying to the American people is OK with the Republican party and its loyal partisans. This is a story that I hope persists for a few weeks.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  142. Too bad the Times didn’t report “the official gave the impression that holding the talks on June 12 would be difficult to schedule.”

    Instead they said the official “told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible“.

    No one told them that, therefore fake news and all the spin in the world won’t change it.

    The Times screwed up and people who should know better are doubling down. Sad.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  143. They don’t bother with quotation marks, that the whole point of ‘gorilla channel’

    narciso

    Well also it’s the whole point of stipulations the Trump administration places on these briefings. No direct quotes, anonymous source, can’t name anyone or anything specifically, all on background only. Then they use the fog they created to instigate drama. It’s this drama they feed on, as the very point of politics. Let’s not ignore that Trump actually wants this to be the story of the day for some reason. At the same time he’s failing to achieve any legislative deals (or deals with North Korea, not that I mind this part) he is playing teevee games.

    A substantial amount of the GOP trusts the damn New York Times more than a Republican president. That’s hilarious!

    Dustin (863e0e)

  144. So the times is wrong like when duranty covered for Stalin, Matthews for Fidel, Salisbury for who chi Minh,

    narciso (d1f714)

  145. the date is gloriously possible

    all things are possible through Him

    he’s President Trump!

    learn it

    know it

    live it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  146. Instead they said the official “told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible“.

    No one told them that, therefore fake news and all the spin in the world won’t change it.

    Can back up your claim that no one told the NYTs thi? CNN and the NYT and the AP all agree that the impression the NYT came to was reasonable. Were you there? Do you have a quote showing this impression is mistaken?

    You’re asserting this is a lie, despite the only party we are certain has been lying about this is Donald Trump. Why? Obviously he’s the one who created all the uncertainty about this super secret meeting, and he’s the one we know is lying about it for reasons that are unclear. Where’s the evidence that the NYT made anything up about this? all CNN said was that ‘technically the word impossible wasn’t used’. That doesn’t really mean anything.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  147. I wouldn’t, but then again the times accepted richman and witted misrepresentations of those memos, and it would have gone on for another year and a half.

    narciso (d1f714)

  148. the date is gloriously possible

    all things are possible through Him

    he’s President Trump!

    learn it

    know it

    live it

    happyfeet

    It would be amusing if Trump scrambled to meet with Kim now.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  149. The evidence is the meeting is back on,

    narciso (d1f714)

  150. How many people here think that when a newspaper says an official told them that something would be impossible that it means the person actually told them it would be impossible?

    If you raised your hand, you know journalism standards better than the NYTimes and numerous commenters here.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  151. 133 — you need to read all the comments Dustin before you decide to jump in.

    Had you gone to the top, you would have seen my first comment on the topic — at the bottom of which I noted “Semantics — sure it is. But this is a press corps that contending a few days ago there was a difference between a “spy” and an “informant”. If they want to play silly word games, then lets play — no “WH Official” who briefed the press on Thursday said the June 12 date was “impossible”, yet that’s what the NYT reported that a WH Official said.

    As Trump pointed out, the WH Official the NYT is referring to doesn’t exist.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  152. i coulda missed the pain Mr. Dustin

    but I’da had to miss

    the dance

    but fortunately Mr. President Trump will be there

    and he wants the best of stuff for us

    he knows our hapless tatters shouldn’t sit there sit there sit there like cannon fodder on the kimchi peninsula

    we’re at a place we never been before

    things are possible what weren’t before!

    i love you Mr. Trump

    let’s get away…

    fly away!

    let’s find the path to paradise

    let’s bring our hapless tatters home

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  153. The New York Times article did not actually offer a direct quotation, therefore your argument is absurd. Both CNN and NYT agree that the “impossible” summary of the briefing “was the impression the Times reporters came away with, based on the tone and tenor of Thursday’s briefing.” Your own source states “It’s a flagrant example of Trump’s problem with the truth.” Those things I’m using that are like double-apostrophes are called quotation marks and are what the article you are pretending supports your argument actually said. Quotation marks are also what you would need to prove your case. Prove your case.

    I win my bet.

    The NYT published the following.

    On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.

    This is a lie. They were not told that a 6/12 meeting was impossible by a senior White House official. NYT Link.

    BTW, the source (CNN) that you called mine was Patterico’s source. IT”S LINKED IN THE OP.

    Of course, there are no quotes in any of the stories, because the conference was off the record. But, CNN was there, and they say the “impossible” language, used by the NYT, was not used by the WH source. It was fabricated by the NYT.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  154. y’all are joking right? Right?

    This one was so much fun compared to a lot of Trump’s lying (and the partisan need to defend it). But seriously.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  155. Kishnevi @ 124:

    Trump has it exactly correct. There was no briefing during which a “WH Official” said the June 12 meeting was “impossible.” That briefing did not take place.

    There was a briefing of the press corps by a senior WH Official, and that WH Official made representations about preparations for the upcoming summit. That WH Official did not say it was “Impossible” so the NYT — which has not issue a correction — must have been referring to some other briefing, and as Trump pointed out, no such other briefing took place.

    Here is the exact text of Trump’s tweet:

    The Failing @nytimes quotes “a senior White House official,” who doesn’t exist, as saying “even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.”

    Trump is quoting the NYT article word for word. No “senior White House official” ever said “June 12 would be impossible” — so the “senior White House official” who the NYT refers to doesn’t exist.

    We can continue on with this farce — its nothing more than “Gotcha” journalism in reverse.

    The NYT wrote something that wasn’t true. It mischaracterized what the WH official said in the briefing, and the audio reflects the mischaracterization.

    Trump can correctly note that he had a senior WH official who said it would be difficult to get all the advance work done in time for June 12, and it might not happen on that date – which is exactly what Trump has said — and he can correctly claim that there is no “Senior White House Official” who told the press that it would be impossible to hold the summit on June 12.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  156. One wishes Wendy Sherman and John Kerry were fictional, having screwed up the first time, the gave her a larger project 1000 fold.

    narciso (d1f714)

  157. I win my bet.

    The NYT published the following.

    On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.

    Like I said, not a direct quote. Your link only contradicts Trump’s briefing, not the NYT report. Trump’s administration can simply be all over the place on this, like they are on everything else.

    Of course, there are no quotes in any of the stories, because the conference was off the record.

    Which was Trump’s fault. He stipulated that these briefings be such that they can simply call anything said a ‘lie’ whether it is or not. Only problem is that Trump is a pretty liar and went even farther, saying the person offering the briefing was a “phony source” instead of a real one. In other words, Trump told a knowing lie and your only defense is this fantasy of yours about what was actually said in the briefing.

    No matter how many times you announce you have ‘won your bet’, all sources present have agreed that the NYT interpretation was reasonable. I already offered a quote showing that. Prove your case or keep pretending lying to the American people, day in and day out, is acceptable.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  158. Mr. Dustin pls to understand

    President Trump just pointed out the lies of the New York Times and the CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda sluts what defended them.

    This was a gracious act on his behalf – he did it just so we’d know. All of us. Me and you and a dog named Sue.

    He’s a giver like that – where most of us would say whatevs this isn’t my job… President Trump says NO – you propaganda sluts need to be accountable!

    Accountable to the people!

    This is so new in America oh my goodness

    it’s gonna take some work to fold this kind of candor into the batter.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  159. The finance minister choice was their volcker but these bastards don’t care, they want to kneeling at Germany’s feet forever.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/27/italys-giuseppe-conte-quits-candidacy-prime-minister-talks-form/

    narciso (d1f714)

  160. Only problem is that Trump is a pretty liar

    This was supposed to say “pretty bad liar”. no one thinks Trump is pretty.

    Anon.y.mous is flailing about about balls and winning bets, but the fact remains that Trump claimed this was a phony source, a nonexistent source, and he specified that the source be anonymous and was therefore lying. The effort to insist the NYT misquoted the source has failed, despite some amazing effort, but ultimately this doesn’t matter. Trump still lied either way, and knowing he lied only makes it harder for *honest* people to believe his characterization of the content. Of course, to anon.y.mous and those like him, what we can’t prove must always be assumed to be in Trump’s favor because the NYTs are on Team D. And every aspect where we know Trump lied should just be ignored. The goalposts never stop moving. The lies never stop.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  161. 159 — Dustin, why are you acting like no one has provided a quote about what the official actually said?? The audio was posted on Twitter — we know EXACTLY what the Official said, his precise words — he’s accurately quoted by CNN in their story.

    He did NOT say 6/12 was “impossible.”

    Yes, the NYT did not “quote” his words — they characterized them, based on their writer’s “impressions” as you have noted.

    But that characterization is false — it would be fair and accurate to use the words “difficult”, “unlikely”, or “doubtful”, but it was inaccurate to write that a WH official said it would be impossible, whether they used a direct quote or not.

    The REASON they didn’t use a direct quote — as other news outlets did — was because it would have denied them the narrative of their story which was that Trump was out-of-touch, not listening to his staff, and unaware of what went into planning this kind of summit.

    THAT is what they wanted to report, so they characterized the briefing in a way that fit that narrative.

    THAT is the NYT MO, as confirmed by a prior NYT reporter who has written on the subject — the editors create the narrative, and the reporters gather facts and write stories to fit the narrative.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  162. President Trump never lies Mr. Dustin.

    Granted, some of his truths are uncomfortable.

    But we’re Americans!

    Comfort isn’t our be all end all.

    We seek truth and we seek it courageously.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  163. Just like Rotherdam and rochdale, they arrest the fellow who tries to call attention, they deport southern and Co who travel there, they will probably find a way to acquit, because reasons.

    narciso (d1f714)

  164. 162 — the briefing was on the record. The only ground rule was that the name of the staffer was not to be used. The reason given was that the WH wanted only the President and Press Sec. to be “voices” on the issue of scheduling. The briefer came to conduct the session because he had first hand knowledge of the ongoing preparations since he was involved with them, where as Sanders did not have that information.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  165. 154.The evidence is the meeting is back on,

    Translation: our Captain doesn’t know if he’s coming or going.

    Stormy does.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  166. The thing that’s really hilarious is that the msm and their shills pounced on the “who doesn’t exist” tweet thinking they had Trump nailed without realizing Trump was right because no one said what the Times claimed they were told.

    All the spin in the world (up to and including excusing the smear as silly because Trump “brags about groping women”) will not change the fact that the Times made something up (aka fake news) and were exposed by the very man they were attempting to smear.

    Still waiting for Patt to come in here and issue a mea culpa but that likelihood appears to be fading since the usual suspects are spinning like propellers.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  167. Now that doesn’t mean we’ll get anywhere, then again look what the last deal was like.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/1411b1a0-a310-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2

    narciso (d1f714)

  168. Did Trump lie when he said the source he insisted remain anonymous was “phony”?

    Yes.

    Did Trump lie about the “impossible” thing?

    Probably.

    Does the “impossible” thing mitigate the other lie?

    No.

    Should anyone trust those Trump fans who would quibble if Trump murdered someone in the street?

    Oh yeah, absolutely.

    Dustin (863e0e)

  169. he’s only the best president ever

    oh yeah absolutely

    so we need to make the most of him while we have him

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  170. “June 12th is in 10 minutes.” — WH spokesperson

    From Dumb & Dumber (1994)(ellipses in original):

    Lloyd Christmas [played by Jim Carey]: I want to ask you a question, straight out, flat out, and I want you to give me the honest answer. What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me ending up together?

    Mary Swanson [played by Lauren Holly]: Well Lloyd, that’s difficult to say. We really don’t…

    Lloyd Christmas: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you Mary, just… The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?

    Mary Swanson: Not good.

    [the background soundtrack music suddenly stops]

    Lloyd Christmas: [he gulps, his mouth twitching] You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

    Mary Swanson: I’d say more like one out of a million.

    Lloyd Christmas: [long pause while he processes what he’s heard] So you’re telling me there’s a chance. YEAH!

    Spoiler: Mary Swanson marries someone else.

    Most media, including the NYT, WaPo, and CNN, continue to withhold the name of this senior WH official who spoke to 50 or so reporters in person and an estimated 200 via conference call. But not all:

    One reporter who was not part of the call revealed the name of the source as Matt Pottinger, a foreign policy aide to Trump. “The only reason I tweeted Matt’s name is because I’m not a White House reporter and I was not on this call,” Yashar Ali wrote explaining his decision to out the source.

    Here’s more about Mr. Pottinger.

    Had the NYT’s paraphrase said merely that meeting as originally planned on June 12 would be practically impossible, or very nearly impossible — without quotation marks to indicate that they were quoting directly — that would have been fair.

    Quibbling about the difference between practically impossible and impossible is stupid. I wish to heavens that all of the lawyers attempting to cross-examine my clients would engage in that level of stupid quibbling.

    Perhaps Trump will amaze Mr. Pottinger, the NYT/WaPo/CNN/Newsweek media, and all of the rest of us by holding the meeting on June 12 anyway. Are there any Trump fans willing to make a wager with me? I’ll even give you 2 to 1 odds.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  171. Two to one odds for something you’ve labeled as “fake news” should be a very good bet, right?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  172. Semantics.

    We know the left lies every single day to advance their agenda. But, some hate Trump more than they hate the left’s tyrannical agenda.

    So be it.

    NJRob (b00189)

  173. Did the Times say that a WH official told them a June 12 meeting was impossible? Yes.

    Did a WH official tell them a June 12 meeting was impossible? No.

    Please keep defending the Times folks, that’s what got Trump elected.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  174. This inclination to quibble and go Clintonesque — as demonstrated in this silly exchange about the degree of unlikelihood — is what should worry Guiliani and others advising the POTUS on whether to submit to questioning from Mueller’s team. This kind of parsing actually supports an inference of guilty intent: It did for Bill Clinton when he argued about what the meaning of “is” is, and it does now when Trump fixes on one particular word from a paraphrase that was not part of the underlying quote. Yes, it would perhaps have been better to paraphrase Pottinger as having said that it was practically impossible or, as swc offers to stipulate above (#166), difficult, unlikely, or doubtful. I would argue that none of those three terms adequately conveys the obvious intent of Pottinger, for he himself used hyperbole — June 12 is more than 10 minutes away, in fact — to intensify the level of doubt he was attempting to convey.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  175. @ harkin: How would you paraphrase the quote?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  176. And are you willing to take me up on my wager?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  177. I propose my $100 against your $50. It’ll be like taking candy from a baby, if this was fake news.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  178. (In #182, you’re the candy-stealer. I’m pointing out what a great deal this wager should be for any Trump fan at 2-to-1 odds.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  179. I’ll even give you until 11:59 p.m. Korean local time on June 12th.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  180. i would say Trump is taking flak because he’s over the target, he caught them saying they were told something they weren’t told. IOW he’s living rent-free in their heads.

    Please quit the misdirection squirm-a-thon and just tell us which WH official told the Times that having the meeting on June 12 “would be impossible”.

    That’s it. It’s very simple, this person either exists or doesn’t.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  181. It’s not hard to find good examples of serious and deliberate leftward bias in the national media.

    This is not a good example. This is a weak at best example, turned into a very bad example by Trump’s quibbling. Using the terminology from the IAG report on McCabe, Trump’s tweet is an example of “Lack of Candor – No Oath.” It’s dissembling. And it’s stupid dissembling: He’s either once again setting up false expectations (which is what I believe this will turn out to have been), or he’s missing an opportunity to actually amaze everyone by keeping a rescheduled June 12 meeting secret until we’re substantially closer to June 12.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  182. Oh, harkin — grow up. This is beneath you. Make the bet if you’re serious. I say you’re not.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  183. harkin, I’m setting a crisp Benjamin, serial no. LB64538568 C, aside. It could be yours.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  184. I asked anyone way back before your lame misdirection to name the official or admit he/she doesn’t exist. Your new demands would not get priority even if they weren’t obvious obfuscation. Making bets on fortune telling has nothing to do with dishonest reporting.

    No one can name the official, and we’ve asked politely quite a few times.

    All you have to do is admit the Times claimed someone said something they didn’t say, it’s not hard.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  185. harkin, there’s no doubt that the word “impossible” was not used. There’s also no doubt that senior WH aide Matt Pottinger cast grave doubt on the prospect that the summit could take place on June 12, going so far as to use hyperbole (the “10 minutes” comment) to deliberately intensify his other observations about why it would be nearly impossible to meet then.

    Now.

    If this was fake news, there’s $100 waiting for you, and you get your original $50 back too, and we can use our host as the stakeholder, and he can mail one or the other of us $150 on June 13.

    Are you man enough to put your money where your mouth is?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  186. If the reporting was dishonest, you should be willing to bet!

    Or you should be willing to admit that the reporting was mostly honest this time. Because it was. And if you don’t —

    You’re not.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  187. Or are we at the point in the exchange when you twirl in a circle and shout, “I’m rubber and you’re glue”?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  188. This inclination to quibble and go Clintonesque — as demonstrated in this silly exchange about the degree of unlikelihood — is what should worry Guiliani and others advising the POTUS on whether to submit to questioning from Mueller’s team. This kind of parsing actually supports an inference of guilty intent: It did for Bill Clinton when he argued about what the meaning of “is” is, and it does now when Trump fixes on one particular word from a paraphrase that was not part of the underlying quote.

    Heh. I can’t believe you are dragging that Clinton “is” thing into this. Clinton used a lawyerly parsing of the language of a question to say that since he wasn’t actually screwing Lewinski on the table at the moment the question was asked, he was arguably truthful.

    On the other hand, in this instance, it is the NYT that is seeking to deceive, not Trump. The NYT claims that an admin source told them something when the source did not tell them that thing. Trump’s involvement is to call them on their lie. Of course, neverTrumpers try to turn it around and claim that Trump told the lie. That Trump is the one being deceptive. Just shows their own dishonesty.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  189. If $100 is too much for you, I’ll agree to any alternative stakes you propose. I’d be glad to risk my $10 against your $5, or my dollar against your two-bits.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  190. If $100 is too much for you, I’ll agree to any alternative stakes you propose. I’d be glad to risk my $10 against your $5, or my dollar against your two-bits.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  191. Err, your four bits. Whatever, you pick the stakes.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  192. Mischaracterizations and a lawyer having another hissy-fit.

    It’s just another day.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  193. Trump is using a lawyerly parsing, built on a false assumption that the NYT was purporting to be giving a direct quote when using the word “impossible.” In context, this was closer to right than to wrong.

    Trump is lying through his teeth, though, when it comes to substance. Using this word game, where he pretends that the NYT was quoting when it didn’t claim to be quoting, he is deliberately giving the impression that this was fabricated entirely out of thin air, rather than being — again, at worst — a too definitive paraphrase.

    harking hasn’t responded to either my bet or my request that he give what he thought would be a fair paraphrase. I make the same request, and bet offer, to you, Anon Y. Mous. (Cash only — I can’t cash a check signed “Anon Y. Mous.”)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  194. “In context, this paraphrase was closer to right than to wrong,” I meant to write in #199.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  195. C’mon boys. Money talks, BS walks. June 12 is [practically] only 10 minutes from now, place your bets.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  196. Haiku, I’ll give you and you only 10-to-1 odds up to $1000.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  197. Like a terrier at 2am Texas-time… grrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  198. President Trump’s the best one!

    That’s God’s truth right there!

    I can’t wait for Tuesday.

    Stupid holiday means we have to wait an extra day til President Trump does more magic America stuff.

    Good ways to pass the time are include guacamole and spa day.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  199. Your conflation is appalling.

    Think of it this way

    A member of the Philadelphia Eagles tells reporters that beating the Pats will be very difficult.

    A Times reporter writes that a member of the Eagles says beating the Pats will be impossible.

    The coach of the Eagles says after reading the Times that the Eagles player who said that “does not exist”

    Beldar calls coach and says “you’re wrong, I’ll bet you $100 the Pats win”

    If you can’t see the disconnect, I can’t help you.

    — –

    At least you admitted the Times said something untrue. Good first step.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  200. It’s a holiday, and I am eager to wager with you if you will.

    10-to-1, dude. I’m deadly serious. There’s a chance Trump will triple down on this and go into a summit wildly unprepared where he gives away the ranch; I’d say that’s at least a one in 10 chance, wouldn’t you? The POTUS is invested in trying to help you, brave Sir Haiku, secure this windfall of up to $1000, plus the even more delicious bragging rights it would give you over me ever after.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  201. Put teh cap back on teh Pappy Van Winkle and get some sleep, dammit!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  202. Win or lose, I prefer to keep my anonymity. And though I would guess it is more likely than not the meeting will occur on 6/12, it is no sure thing and I wouldn’t want to wager more than a token even with someone I know in real life. Bragging rights and I told you so’s are all I’d be willing to put up online.

    Trump is using a lawyerly parsing, built on a false assumption that the NYT was purporting to be giving a direct quote when using the word “impossible.”

    How did Trump do that? NYT says WH official told them meeting impossible. Trump says that never was said.

    Trump is right. It wasn’t said. Impossible is different than difficult to accomplish or whatever you want to read into the actual comments. “Impossible” is not a fair reading.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  203. Still waiting on a paraphrase you think would be fair, harkin. That would be a “good first step.”

    All any of you are doing is arguing a tautology: The transcript doesn’t contain the word “impossible.” If those of you making this argument think that’s being honest, then you’re using the Bill Clinton version of honesty — and that’s disgusting, but certainly in proper obedient imitation of your cult leader.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  204. If NYT wanted to report “unlikely” they could have done that. But they didn’t. They reported impossible. Because they are narrative loving liars. And worms. And physical cowards.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  205. It’s not even Monday yet and President Trump be stompin all the grapes goddamn right

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  206. @ Anon Y. Mous: If you’ll trust our host to hold the stakes, I’m sure he’d be happy to protect even your return mailing address. I’m not trying to out you, I’m practically begging you to take my $100.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  207. The Trump v the NYT thing makes me think Trump will try to get it done on 6/12 instead of even a day later. Nothing he would like better than breaking it off in the NYT’s ass.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  208. Then take my money, Anon Y. Mous. You can even donate it to Trump in my real name, if you win it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  209. President Trump got your return AND your address and you know what he do?

    President Trump abides.

    Trump is strong

    no-one can tell him he’s wrong

    been searching our hearts for too long

    Trump knows…

    mattis be sh!t on a battlefield

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  210. If you’ll trust our host to hold the stakes, I’m sure he’d be happy to protect even your return mailing address. I’m not trying to out you, I’m practically begging you to take my $100.

    No, seeing how things went down between him and Ace of Spades does not make me trust Patterico with my real life id. Obviously, I don’t know the full story of what went on between them, but it sounded to me like Patterico was talking about some stuff that was said in confidence between them. Ace published some criticisms of Patterico’s public opinion writing, and Patterico started talking about private conversations that had taken place between them.

    While it was certainly fair for Patterico to take offense and strenuously disagree with Ace, as well as for Patterico to level strong and equally offensive criticisms at Ace, I thought discussing private conversations was over the line.

    I would trust him with the money, if that was the only thing I was worried about protecting. But, like I already said, I wouldn’t be interested in betting big on this anyway.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  211. Bill Clinton was asked about the truth or falsity of the statement made by his counsel, Robert Bennett, in front of Clinton and Judge Susan Weber Wright during Clinton’s deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit that “there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton.”

    That prompted Clinton to go into his “depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” quibbling in his video testimony to Ken Starr’s grand jury (.pdf at 129).

    Applying Clintonesque parsing, one must admit that at the moment Bennett was speaking, there was no then-ongoing sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton.

    Applying Trump’s and Trump’s supporters’ logic to this situation, then, the person who allowed his lawyer to deny that there was every sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton does not exist. And the NYT could have fairly so reported, with no quibble from any of you, that evening, correct?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  212. #217: I didn’t see that excuse coming. It makes me think much less of you, in inverse proportion to my respect for our host.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  213. Not an excuse. You asked about trust.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  214. Your expression of your lack of trust makes me think less of you, in inverse proportion to my respect for our host. Do you want to propose a stakeholder whom you do trust?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  215. It’s not worth the trouble. As I have said twice before, three times now, I wouldn’t be interested in wagering anything but a token. Trying to find someone to hold the stakes and protect my id isn’t worth it for a token bet.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  216. And your paraphrase? Do you think that anything stronger than “difficult to accomplish” (per your #208) would have been misleading, in trying to paraphrase the degree of doubt that Pottinger was attempting to convey?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  217. It is cracking me up to see the same people who constantly b!tch about lawyers this, lawyers that, try to out-Clinton Clinton.

    That person does not exist, the person who allowed his lawyer to deny that there never was (in the past tense) sex of any manner, shape or form with President Clinton! That person was never impeached, and never acquitted in the Senate! His wife wasn’t Trump’s opponent in 2016, either, because that person does not exist!

    Clown car presidency, with clown car defenders.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  218. I think difficult to accomplish is fair based on what I have seen. I haven’t seen a full transcript of the conference, just pieces. Maybe I would revise if I saw the whole thing. Also, I’m not wedded to that phrase, just seemed accurate to me. Always willing to consider alternatives.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  219. That’s because you go out of your way to read Trump in the worst possible light. Only a Trump-hater would think that Trump was deliberately trying to communicate that the conference had never occurred or that there was no such person as the guy holding the conference.

    You want to indict Trump for every tweet, so you do. Anyone who for just one moment tries to sympathetically read Trump’s tweet, tries to understand what the man was actually trying to get across would know that Trump was complaining about a false NYT report. And the report was false!

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  220. @ Anon Y. Mous: You wrote in #208 above:

    “Impossible” is not a fair reading.

    You wrote in #255 above that you “haven’t seen a full transcript of the conference, just pieces.”

    How, then, do you know that “impossible” is not a fair reading? How do you know that “impossible” is not closer to the intended meaning as deduced from the full context?

    How do you account for Mr. Pottinger’s use of extreme sarcasm and hyperbole in comparing the prospects for being ready by June 12th to the prospects for being ready in 10 minutes? Why would he engage in that level of snark, if he merely wanted to say that meeting on June 12th would be difficult to accomplish?

    He didn’t use the word “impossible,” but there really is a Pottinger. He apparently is closer to the process of preparing than even the Presidential Press Secretary, Sarah Sanders, as swc pointed out above. Based even on whatever you have read of what he said, you concede that Pottinger may be fairly paraphrased as having said that June 12th would be (at least) difficult to accomplish.

    Is Trump’s tweet therefore materially misleading, for failing to disclose that there was a real senior WH aide who really did tell the press that June 12th would be difficult to accomplish?

    As a lawyer who handles fraud cases daily, I’d say: Yes, without any doubt it is. But perhaps you disagree. Can we at least agree that someone reading Trump’s Tweet, and nothing else about this whole controversy, might well be misled by it into believing that no senior WH aide was involved in the briefing, and/or that no senior WH aide expressed a belief that it would be difficult to accomplish the meeting on June 12th?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  221. There’s no wordiness, here, Beldar. IANAL and I totally understand the difference of impossible and unlikely.

    I remember this blog being conservative 10 years ago. I don’t remember it being so whiney though.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  222. Here’s the audio published by Yashar Ali via Twitter; it’s only 1:41 including the introduction of Pottinger and ground rules.

    This is my transcript of Pottinger’s answer to a reporter who asked him to clarify whether Trump had been saying that “it is possible that June 12th could still, could still happen,” or whether (if I heard it correctly) “that ship’s sailed”:

    I think that, um — the main point, I suppose, is that the ball is in North Korea’s court right now. And, uh, there — there’s really not a lot of time. We’ve, we’ve lost quite a bit of time that we would need in order to — I mean, there’s been an enormous amount of preparation that’s gone on over the past few months in the White House, at State, and with other agencies and so forth, but there’s a certain amount of actual dialogue that needs to take place at the working level with your counterparts to ensure that, uh, the agenda is clear in the minds of those two leaders when they sit down to actually meet and talk and negotiate and hopefully make a deal. And June 12 is in 10 minutes [laughs] and it’s gonna be — but you, know, but the president has said that he, uh, that some day he looks forward to meeting with Kim.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  223. June 12th is a Tuesday. You know, it’s still entirely possible that this summit might take place on a Tuesday.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  224. So far President Trump’s surpassed all the expectations.

    Not a lot of presidents you can say that about.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  225. Point to the ray of hope in that comment that makes a reasonable listener believe “difficult” is what Pottinger was trying to portray.

    I’m sticking with “practically impossible,” as conveyed by a guy who’s been told not to admit that in so many words but to adjust expectations away from June 12.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  226. Pottinger was probably hungry for either waffles or maybe a tuna melt. June 12 is George H.W. Bush’s birthday – that’s the old as dirt bush what likes to molest young girls.

    It needs to stop at some point but I think they’re just gonna wait him out if you know what I mean.

    It’s sort of the Bush way.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  227. This purports to be a full transcript.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  228. From later in the transcript:

    QUESTION: So in his letter, President Trump called the dialogue between him and Chairman Kim “the only dialogue that matters.” Normally, a summit like this would follow extensive preparations and — and talks at the ministerial (ph) level and — and so on, up and up and up until getting to the point that the two heads of state would meet.
    And, obviously, the president responded to Chairman Kim’s invitation. But that having not panned out, is there any effort or desire on the part of the administration to, maybe, do this the way that other summits like this would normally be done? Start at the bottom and — and work up to a head of state meeting as opposed to giving them the worry of that right away?

    SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: Yeah. Well, it — the — the format you just explained hasn’t resulted in — in denuclearization of North Korea despite numerous agreements that have been made, declaring that — that very end state, agreed by both sides.

    That said, there has been work going on. And — and some of the work to prepare for the summit was — was halted because we simply couldn’t get them to pick up the phone at a certain point.

    And so there — the radio silence precluded the opportunity to do some of that preparation work in advance of the two sitting down.

    I see no suggestion here that despite the radio silence and Trump’s letter canceling the summit, June 12 still remains a possible date for it. Does anyone else?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  229. Pretending the summit’s still reasonably possible for June 12 is pretty much like pretending that your Norwegian Blue parrot is resting.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  230. Only a Trump-hater would think that Trump was deliberately trying to communicate that the conference had never occurred or that there was no such person as the guy holding the conference.

    Ha, ha, ha! You mean only a person who has counted 2,000 lies from Trump since he was sworn in (and still counting) would think that Trump was deliberately trying to communicate that the conference had never occurred or that there was no such person as the guy holding the conference.

    nk (dbc370)

  231. The Failing @nk claims “a Trump,” who doesn’t exist, has said 2,000 lies “since he was sworn in (and still counting).” WRONG AGAIN! Use real presidents, not phony Trumps.

    Donald J. Trump at the real nk (dbc370)

  232. #232, et. al.,

    Why is it anyone’s job here to suggest a paraphrase? The NYT didn’t claim to be paraphrasing anything. They claimed to be quoting what was said in the briefing. Why the need to paraphrase anyway. You know, like, they were in attendance. What in the world are you even arguing? The full audio is out there for anyone to listen to, and no one ever said the thing was “impossible”. It’s not defensible to somehow claim otherwise, so why? Paraphrase? How about simply reporting accurately what was said. If the writer chooses to put words in someone’s mouth that did not come spilling from that person’s mouth, that might be considered dishonest. Here, let me paraphrase you: “I’ve become unhinged”. Hey man, I’m paraphrasing here so, you know, it doesn’t really matter what you’ve actually typed and what you have not. What an odd game you are playing. Now take me up on a bet: 2000-1, the word “impossible” is used. I’ll wire the money to a Swiss bank account, you do the same, and then let’s go listen to the audio. You’re a bit of a silly man.

    That said, the Prez’s tweet is of a piece to your own writings here. He might have written “No one said impossible, NYT, #fakenews. Sad.” and that would have been that. But he did not. His statement is fairly decisive, and one has to split hairs to defend it. He would do well to reword the thing. If he will not, he deserves the criticism. But then, so does the NYT, and any other reporters who are too lazy to do their own research instead of simply parroting what they’ve read in the Times. What a circle jerk.

    Now, it is telling that everyone who is labeling Trump a liar is also granting a pardon to the NYT for the same crime. The NYT would also do well to issue a retraction and simply provide the actual quote(s) from the briefing, instead of reporting that the word “impossible” was used. Not much time, the ship is sailing, this is going to be fairly difficult? All of that was said, so why not just report that? Why report an “impression” instead of the straight facts? Reporters used to do such things. Now, not so much: we are treated to analysis, otherwise known as editorializing. That’s the state of things these days. The actual truth of a matter is subject for debate as a result. Rather juvenile.

    Estarcatus (30e441)

  233. Oh, and by the way, this open thread does not exist and is also impossible. FIFY.

    Estarcatus (30e441)

  234. I think June 12 is a bit of a long odds bet at 2:1. I will take 10:1 if offered my way and am willing to put up my own wager for $500 that Trump/Kim meet by end of year. House gets 10%. Who’s man enough?

    Skorcher (c420c7)

  235. BTW, that 500 is even money. A very generous offer if you understand odds making. Damn near foolish on my part but oooh, the bragging rights it would bring. I’m in it for more than just the filthy lucre.

    Skorcher (c420c7)

  236. Gambling is for suckers. But using betting lingo metaphorically, if the North Koreans Chinese insist on “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” i.e. making South Korea a nuclear-free zone like New Zealand, as their fellow travelers in the media have been reporting, the odds of a summit at all are slim and the odds of a deal non-existent.

    nk (dbc370)

  237. I don’t believe you thought of it that way, Skorcher, but doubt Patterico will be pleased to see you are inviting or expecting him to use his blog run a gambling enterprise.

    DRJ (15874d)

  238. DRJ,

    have you read Beldar’s last dozen posts?

    NJRob (b00189)

  239. So this reporter was all inquisitive about the rhodes road show, operation casdandra, the framework, that’s about what I thought.

    narciso (d1f714)

  240. Always trust content from….
    The Federalist.

    Try swatting that one away.

    jb (a3c1bc)

  241. The NYT is guilty of a major journalistic sin. Enormous. They are all but sworn to be supercilious in their accuracy, most especially in dealing with a president who is entrusting them with diplomatic intel. In diplomacy, characterization of a position is entirely about verbiage. Nuance is crucial.

    The term “impossible” was never said on behalf of DJT in the reported encuonter.

    Would it have been significant if DJT had tweeted, “The senior WH official who said, “Impossible” does not exist? No such aide exists. I’ve used that construct in past dealings and my meaning was clear. Those words were never said.

    This is a perfect example of fake news, imo. The NYT richly earned a skewering. The paper deserves scorn for refusing to retract. Such carelessness plays right into DJT’s hands. In this instance, as I see it, he is actually a victim.

    How much ransom was paid to free the dude from Venezuela?

    Ed from SFV (b95465)

  242. DRJ,

    have you read Beldar’s last dozen posts?
    NJRob (b00189) — 5/28/2018 @ 7:26 am

    I think June 12 is a bit of a long odds bet at 2:1. I will take 10:1 if offered my way and am willing to put up my own wager for $500 that Trump/Kim meet by end of year. House gets 10%. Who’s man enough?
    Skorcher (c420c7) — 5/28/2018 @ 4:49 am

    If you pay close attention, skorcher stipulates 10% for the house. This is where the bet crosses the line. While Beldar’s propositions have been simply “friendly.”

    felipe (023cc9)

  243. narciso, let what happened to Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab the Reubenite, be the fate of the msm.

    felipe (023cc9)

  244. Beldar did not offer to pay the House, NJRob.

    DRJ (15874d)

  245. I strongly disagree with the claim that Patterico violated confidential conversations with Ace of Spades.

    Patterico has said he decided not to criticize Ace for settling with Kimberlin because he was a friend and he understood how hard it was to keep fighting. In fact, Patterico originally said about Ace’s settlement with Kimberlin: “I’m not mad he settled. They found his pressure point and exploited it. For him, it may have been the right thing to do.”

    Patterico also pointed out that Ace all but admitted he blogs for Trump because of page views, which Patterico compared to “settling with Brett Kimberlin.” In other words, Ace’s settlement and his reason for supporting Trump both show that Ace is concerned about his bottom line.

    Patterico refrained from criticizing Ace about that because they were friends until Ace called Patterico a “coward and dishonest hack” over Trump, and then Patterico realized they were no longer friends. But Patterico did not reveal their private conversations.

    DRJ (15874d)

  246. “Why is it anyone’s job here to suggest a paraphrase? The NYT didn’t claim to be paraphrasing anything. They claimed to be quoting what was said in the briefing. Why the need to paraphrase anyway. You know, like, they were in attendance. What in the world are you even arguing? The full audio is out there for anyone to listen to, and no one ever said the thing was “impossible”. It’s not defensible to somehow claim otherwise, so why? Paraphrase? How about simply reporting accurately what was said.”

    Bravo – it ain’t rocket science.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  247. so they doxed vachel Lindsay, aka inspector rex, just because they can, and he’s even more subrosa than the ewok, so nakamura is almost always carrying the rizzotto tray, sometimes he picks it when current united airlines spokesman, and previous spokesflak ‘not so earnest’ dropped it,

    narciso (d1f714)

  248. “Now, it is telling that everyone who is labeling Trump a liar is also granting a pardon to the NYT for the same crime. The NYT would also do well to issue a retraction and simply provide the actual quote(s) from the briefing, instead of reporting that the word “impossible” was used. Not much time, the ship is sailing, this is going to be fairly difficult? All of that was said, so why not just report that? Why report an “impression” instead of the straight facts? Reporters used to do such things.”

    A concept difficult to grasp for some here.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  249. Only a Trump-hater would think that Trump was deliberately trying to communicate that the conference had never occurred or that there was no such person as the guy holding the conference.

    Headlines around the world:
    Donald Trump Insists Times Source Doesn’t Exist; Reporters Prove Him Wrong

    Trump Falsely Says Times Made Up Source in Report on Korea Summit Meeting

    Trump’s ‘phony’ source turns out to be White House official

    Trump Calls His Own Official a ‘Phony Source’ in Attack on The New York Times

    Audio discredits Trump’s claim that White House official ‘doesn’t exist’

    Trump literally said this source didn’t exist. He said it was phony. He told the American people it was fictitious. And now look how tangled the web of lies has to become to try to compensate for one lie. Not only do we have to pretend this misquote happened, we have to insist the misquote was solidly proven (rather than the exact opposite: corroborated). Then we have to insist Trump’s statement didn’t mean what it clearly did. Then we have to assert everyone who doesn’t agree with the most zealously partisan defense of Dear Leader is “a hater.”

    That’s been the obnoxious nature of the ‘never trumper’ cry for years now. This is what partisanship has done for the conservative movement.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  250. #255

    So in the space of 9 months, a complete turn around. A vicious turnaround. Based on what, words? I said it then, meet point with counterpoint. Words. Not a thunderous jab to the minerals. It was wrong, any way you slice it, in any objective sense.

    Estarcatus (10fa1e)

  251. Since the closed-minded are still amongst us:

    “At Stanford Law School, no more than three of approximately 110 full-time faculty publicly identify as conservative or libertarian. (By way of contrast, Stanford Law School touts on its webpage 23 full-time faculty under the inartful rubric of “minority.”) As a consequence, many of my classmates will graduate having never engaged with a law professor whose worldview and convictions track those of nearly half the voting public.”

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2018/05/2018-grad-decries-political-correctness-at-stanford-law-school.html

    Good read.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  252. Trump clearly focused on the source not the words (“Use real people, not phony sources”) in his tweet, suggesting that the WH official who gave the briefing doesn’t exist. But he also slipped in a jab at the use of the word “impossible.”

    I think Trump intentionally is careless with his words in order to create controversy and deniability. It is cunning but it is also the opposite of transparency. I suspect people who value winning above all like this more than people who think government should be transparent and accountable.

    DRJ (15874d)

  253. #259

    Criticism of both the Prez and the NYT is warranted in this case. Simple simon. No logical contortions nor hyperbole necessary.

    Estarcatus (10fa1e)

  254. No, 260, not at all. He always thought Ace was a coward for settling but he didn’t say it until Ace called him a coward. We all understand why Ace settled. It is hard to go through things like that. A lot of people settled, but Patterico did not.

    DRJ (15874d)

  255. 259… “we” don’t have to do anything, just like this post never had to be put up.

    Freedom of choice. It’s what we got.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  256. DRJ and felipe,

    The alleged infraction wouldn’t exist without Beldar’s constant taunts and then elevation by saying have Patterico hold the money.

    NJRob (482a4e)

  257. Since this is the word game pretzel logic thread I would like to point out that Skorcher didn’t say which “House” he was talking about. I can see where some might think he was referring to Patterico considering Beldar earlier comment:

    @ Anon Y. Mous: If you’ll trust our host to hold the stakes, I’m sure he’d be happy to protect even your return mailing address. I’m not trying to out you, I’m practically begging you to take my $100.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/28/2018 @ 12:23 am

    It seems pretty clear that Beldar thinks of Patterico as a partner when it comes to gambling. An unpaid partner, but a partner nonetheless. Speaking for Patrick seem to cross a much more obvious line than offering Patrick a cut.

    Please parse this away.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  258. “I think Trump intentionally is careless with his words in order to create controversy and deniability. It is cunning but it is also the opposite of transparency. I suspect people who value winning above all like this more than people who think government should be transparent and accountable.”

    I really think you give him too much credit, his communication skills are dominated by his emotions.

    The way I’ve read this from the beginning, and still do, is that the report said an official said it was impossible. Trump asked if anyone said that. No one did so they truthfully answered no.

    Trump said that the person who said it does not exist because (and here’s the hard part for some to grasp) no one freaking said it.

    harkin (e4ec42)

  259. Ace was the one who had the “vicious turnaround.” And over Trump. What a sad excuse for a friend to use.

    DRJ (15874d)

  260. I think Trump intentionally is careless with his words in order to create controversy and deniability.

    Do you think this happens at the NYT as well?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  261. Beldar very well could be sleeping it off and thinking less of himself as these words – that didn’t have to be written – are written.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  262. I am not opining on the legality of gambling. It’s far to complex and varies among jurisdictions. But generally you will have less problems with private bets than with bets where there is no House (a person who receives an economic benefit other than personal winnings obtained through skill or luck). In Beldar’s case, the risks of losing and the chances of winning were the same for all participants. Skorcher’s example uses Patterico as the House.

    DRJ (15874d)

  263. Do you think this happens at the NYT as well?

    BuDuh (fc15db) — 5/28/2018 @ 8:38 am

    Absolutely.

    DRJ (15874d)

  264. LOL

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  265. Sorry. I need to correct my 272:

    I am not opining on the legality of gambling. It’s far too complex and varies among jurisdictions. But generally you will have less problems with private bets than with bets where there is no a House (a person who receives an economic benefit other than personal winnings obtained through skill or luck). In Beldar’s case, the risks of losing and the chances of winning were the same for all participants. Skorcher’s example uses Patterico as the House.

    DRJ (15874d)

  266. Sorry, I was LOLing at the Beldar protection.

    On the NYT comment, we both agree DRJ. It is a stepping stone in the right direction for us.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  267. If Patterico’s blog is the vehicle for the bet, is it a “private” bet?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  268. That would depend on the local, state, and federal/online laws. There are many gambling laws and they vary.

    DRJ (15874d)

  269. Trump clearly focused on the source not the words (“Use real people, not phony sources”) in his tweet, suggesting that the WH official who gave the briefing doesn’t exist. But he also slipped in a jab at the use of the word “impossible.”

    I think Trump intentionally is careless with his words in order to create controversy and deniability. It is cunning but it is also the opposite of transparency. I suspect people who value winning above all like this more than people who think government should be transparent and accountable.

    DRJ

    Yes, he has often engaged in the generation of drama for its own sake. I suppose other presidents did this too, but not so blatantly or lightly. Trump’s failed North Korean initiative was a bad headline. Now he changed it to this mess about the New York Times. Sure, the majority of the nation trusts him less, but his loyal supporters actually like him more. An audacious and dishonest attack on the left? That’s very good from the point of view of many of Trump’s frustrated supporters.

    By muddying all waters as much as possible, Trump’s forced conservatives who seek an honest and transparent government to basically defend the NYT. To Trump (and to Ace of Spades and those similar), this “proves” they were “never Trumpers” all along. To folks like me, the truth is the truth and I don’t pretend or mischaracterize the facts just for the sake of partisanship.

    No, seeing how things went down between him and Ace of Spades does not make me trust Patterico with my real life id.

    Anon.Y.Mous, as best as I can tell, you’re siding with a terrorist. A real one. Ace of Spades didn’t hold true with the Kimberlin critics, and settled, removed criticisms of Ace, banned Kimberlin critics from commenting truthfully in criticism of this decision (myself included), and yet more. You twist this around to insult Patterico’s integrity, which is appalling but totally unsurprising as everything is so personal to Trump’s eternally touchy fans.

    Have a moral compass. Life is a lot easier when you’re not lying about people or defending obvious liars. You’re lumped in with buduh (cruz supporter?) and Haiku now.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  270. I really think you give him too much credit, his communication skills are dominated by his emotions.

    I used to think that, too, but now I think Trump works hard to make sure his statements and tweets are dominated by our emotions, not his.

    DRJ (15874d)

  271. What if Skorcher replaced “House gets 10%” with “And to show my gratitude to Patterico’s blog, where Beldar speaks for the bet holding host, I would like to donate 10% of the money to a charity of Patrick’s choosing. I am not demanding this nor am I, like Beldar, suggesting that you are already a willing participant in an on gambling scheme. I am merely asking for the blessing from this blog site which you are free to say no.”

    Would that have been better?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  272. That would depend on the local, state, and federal/online laws. There are many gambling laws and they vary.

    Which laws should I look into?

    Whether or not Patrick holding payouts for gamblers is legal?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  273. I wish everyone a thoughtful Memorial Day.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  274. #264

    So which is it? Is one a coward for avoiding the pain of being raked over the coals, lose one’s anonymity, driven to bankruptcy and maybe ill health? Or does some understand this and think it was probably the best course of action for that particular person? Every time anyone suggest it was the former, to his credit, our host stepped in to aver.

    Now, I may read what was written at the time, and base my conclusions on that. I read nothing from that time that our host thought that Ace was a coward. Then, a political disagreement and harsh rhetoric. One might react one of two ways: rebuttal based on logic, or rehashing past events in a novel manner: the cowardice brand. In complete disagreement with something written a mere 8 months ago. The whole sordid mess was brutal. The fact that our proprietor chose to fight to the end is immaterial to what another might have done.

    So suddenly the person in question is a sniveling coward, and he always felt this was true. Is this written down somewhere dated before the Great Schism? If so, I’d like to read that. If not, the whole thing demonstrates a temporary moral failure. One that should be acknowledged and corrected.

    Why is this difficult? And as I said after, he knows what he’s done, he can defend himself. But, #banscript! Particularly amusing given the subject of the post. We may certainly agree to disagree, but I believe my position to be in the right.

    Estarcatus (10fa1e)

  275. Lmao, Col.
    86 lawyers and t

    mg (9e54f8)

  276. I just read through about 30 comments by Beldar and others poking fun at those who were defending Trump’s tweet on the basis that the WH briefer never used the word “impossible”, but the NYT reporters wrote in their story that the WH briefer told members of the press that the June 12 date for the summit was “impossible.”

    I kicked off this entire debate @52 by breaking down what happened, what was said at the briefing, what CNN reported, and what the NYT reported.

    I made two points in that comment and a couple others that followed that have gone unaddressed by Beldar and the others.

    I acknowledged that its a matter of silly semantics and word games to call the NYT out for their mischaracterization of what the WH Official said.

    And I think Beldar, Dustin, and others need to acknowledge that the NYT did “paraphrase” or even purport to paraphrase what the Official said – they mischaracterized what he said.

    “Paraphrasing” doesn’t involve changing the meaning of what the speaker said — paraphrasing means to remain faithful to the speaker’s comments, but using different words to bring more clarity.

    Mischaracterizing means to take the words of the speaker and report them in such a way as to change the meaning or context.

    I agree that the WH Briefer was attempting to reduce expectations and throw some cold water on the idea that a well-planned summit could take place on June 12, and begin to lay the groundwork for something to happen on June 12 that might be less than anticipated, or to move the date completely. I think Trump’s own comments, as well as comments from other Admin officials reported by various news outlets are all consistent with that approach – that June 12 is possible, but much remains to be done, and much depends on the Norks willingness and ability to get those things done on a compressed time schedule. Trump has said it might not happen. So have others.

    The NYT didn’t quote the official because they couldn’t quote the official. Quoting the official would have been consistent with what Trump and others have said, and THAT WASN’T THE STORY NARRATIVE THE NYT WAS SET TO RUN.

    The NYT narrative was that Trump was out of step with his staff, he wasn’t listening to his staff, or he didn’t understand what goes into planning such a summit. Having Trump making comments holding out the possibility that the June 12 date remains possible, while reporting that a senior WH Official told the press that June 12 was “impossible” FIT THEIR NARRATIVE, so that’s how they reported it.

    Their dishonesty is that they wrote a “senior WH Official said” and then used the word “impossible” rather than quote what the WH official said.

    THESE ARE THE HABITS AND ACTIONS OF EDITORS AND REPORTERS WITH AN AGENDA. The absence of a quote is the result of a purposeful editing decision. The use of the word “impossible” with reference to what a WH Official said is to establish a conflict between Trump and Staff.

    And during the last 40+ years of “gotcha” journalism that the WH press corps has applied only to GOP Presidents, this episode would have led to nothing more than a vigorous disagreement between the WH press office and the NYT reporters and editors behind the scenes.

    But that was before Twitter. Now the press has to eat their own words, and they all rallied to the NYT defense

    A fair and accurate paraphrase would have said the senior WH official said the June 12 date was “unlikely”, “difficult to meet”, or “improbable” because of the advance work remaining to be done. The use of the definitive “impossible” was not a fair characterization.

    The June 12 date might very well be impossible, and I wouldn’t take you up on your bet because of it.

    But we’re not debating that question — if the NYT wanted to report on that issue, they could have easily done so in the form of a reporter’s “conclusion” paragraph along the lines of “given all the advance work and discussions that remain to take place in advance of the June 12 date, a summit that produces actual results towards the goal of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula appears impossible.”

    To put that “conclusion” as having come from the mouth of the WH official is slanted and misleading journalism meant to make a point unrelated to the chance of having the summit on June 12.

    And, as I said in my first message, and reiterated above, this is all silly and stupid semantic word games — but its rich coming from a press corps that twisted inself in knots over the last 7 days explaining how an “informant” is different from a “spy”, and hammering Trump for having used “spy” to characterize Stefan Halper.

    What if it becomes known — and I don’t know this for a fact — that Halper really is a retired CIA case officer, i.e., a former “spy”.

    Will the press correct their prior reporting, and go back and hammer all the Obama Admin officials who so stridently criticized Trump for calling him a “spy” when he was really just an “informant.”

    The press aren’t the only people with dictionaries and a talent for the facile use of language.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  277. And their private eyes.

    mg (9e54f8)

  278. No he seems to be more an asset, than an operative, hence the ona disbursements which are the real story, let’s see the work product.

    narciso (4e6dec)

  279. #279

    Ah, the paragon virtue and infallible arbiter of objective universal truths. You sure you’ve never let your emotions inform your judgement? It’s natural to do, and only human.

    And speaking of a moral compass, nice to term someone a coward without having walked even five steps in his shoes. You’re quite the pit bull.

    Estarcatus (10fa1e)

  280. who were defending Trump’s tweet on the basis that the WH briefer never used the word “impossible”,

    Correction, SWC, Trump’s tweet was on the basis that the source of the briefing didn’t exist. Trump had previously insisted his source be anonymous and he was lying. The New York times did not assert that the word “impossible” was used, and never offered any direct quotes in their paraphrase about the Trump administration’s assertion that a June 12 date was extremely unlikely. All other news agencies have actually corroborated that the “impossible” paraphrase was justifiable even if that word wasn’t used.

    And you know this. You know Trump lied that this source doesn’t exist. You know it’s a lie with a stupid justification. I really am unclear on whether you’re like Happyfeet here and are just satirizing deranged defense.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  281. 284,

    Patterico understood better than any of us what Ace faced and he (Patterico) suffered far, far more than anyone. He understood and he wasn’t mad, but that doesn’t mean he thought Ace took the courageous path. Patterico only responded when Ace called him a coward and dishonest hack for opposing Trump. I suspect Patterico thought it was hypocritical to call him a coward given Ace’s history.

    DRJ (15874d)

  282. I think the NY Times was inaccurate in its use of the word “impossible” but it was a reasonable interpretation based on what the WH official said. Normally, I think past White Houses would issue a statement correcting the Times’ report. It probably would not have gotten much press, and I suspect Trump wants this to get attention because he plans to have the summit on June 12 — just to show up the Times. I hope he doesn’t give up something important to Kim to make it happen.

    DRJ (15874d)

  283. 269 – I had never read the comment by Ace, or the explanation for the breach in their friendship by the host that you linked to.

    Looking at Ace’s post where he included the host in with Goldberg and Kristol as part of the “Washington consensus” was pretty jarring.

    In his long history of opposing Trump, I’ve never got the impression that the Host’s reasons for doing so have much overlap with the reasons why the “Washington consensus” opposed Trump. I think folks like Kristol, Goldberg, Max Boot, etc., oppose Trump has more to do with their fears that he’s wrecking the institutional control over the GOP that certain groups aligned on the right have maintained since Pres. Reagan left office. Its the same fear that many had of the Tea Party, and the rise in power of the Freedom Caucus in the House — it upsets their apple cart, and leaves them picking up apples off the street rather than enjoying cocktails in Georgetown or Manhattan.

    And they were right to fear him on that basis, and to oppose him out of their selfish reasons.

    Its not like his cabinet is stocked with establishment figures — his most effective cabinet members are a retired 4 Star Marine Corps General, and two former members of the House Freedom Caucus who each had only 3 terms in the House before being named as cabinet officers, both having first been elected in the “Tea Party” year of 2010 (Pompeo and Mulvaney).

    And now they are having policy successes, and electoral prospects are brightening.

    The proof in midterms always comes down to a simple fact — is the President wanted by House candidates to campaign in their districts with them. We’ll see how that shakes out over the next 12 weeks — but I think the answer is going to be “yes.”

    Frankly, I can’t think of a single GOP establishment figure from the punditocracy has has slipped further into oblivion than Bill Kristol, nor a publication that has fallen from influence more than the Weekly Standard.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  284. BuDuh,

    We only have one government so it should be accountable. However, it does not always have to be transparent in foreign affairs. I don’t like Trump’s tweets but that is who he is.

    But I have a choice when it comes to media. They should be accountable but if they aren’t, at least I don’t have to subscribe/pay for them like I do the government.

    DRJ (15874d)

  285. All you lawyers subscribing to The NY Times B.S. is not surprising, it verifies your abuse of thought.

    mg (9e54f8)

  286. Hey, how come nobody has yet said “Don’t take Trump literally; watch what he does not what he says”?

    nk (dbc370)

  287. There are hundreds of gambling laws, BuDuh, depending on the jurisdiction and the type of gambling involved. And different prosecutors can view them in different ways — with 254 counties in Texas alone, not to mention State and federal authorities, imagine how many possibilities that generates. But I know that giving a cut to the House raises the chances of a legal problem.

    DRJ (15874d)

  288. Yes they can destroy lives and careers based on innuendo and they keep getting invited back:

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/james-clapper-michael-flynn-joined-trump-team-out-of-spite-after-being-fired-obama

    narciso (4e6dec)

  289. It’s odd shipwrecked, since I really respected Kristol as with the Senior podhoretz who is mostly retired from punditry.

    narciso (4e6dec)

  290. 290 — I’ve noted you have made this argument about a half dozen times Dustin, and every time without actually going to the words used in the tweet — in other words, you are characterizing the tweet for your own purposes.

    So, lets look at the text:

    The Failing @nytimes quotes “a senior White House official,” who doesn’t exist, as saying “even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.” WRONG AGAIN! Use real people, not phony sources.

    As I’ve said, its all “semantics” and silly word games. But Trump’s tweet says that:

    1. NYT quotes
    2. Senior WH official
    3. Who doesn’t exist
    4. As saying a June 12 summit
    5. Would be impossible
    6. Because of lack of time and amount of planning needed

    If 4, 5, and 6 are all a mischaracterization of what the actual WH official said, then its completely accurate to say that the NYT is referencing someone who doesn’t exist when it attributes those inaccurate comments to a “WH official”.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  291. 292 — DRJ: Then they should NOT have written it that a WH official “said” that, because he didn’t. They could have said he “suggested” it was impossible, or he “gave the impression” it was impossible.

    But they attributed a word to him that he did not use, and thereby changed the meaning of the words he did use by their choice.

    And IMO it was purposeful and intentional, and perfectly inline and consistent with NYT editorial policy in crafting the narrative of their news stories about Trump.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  292. I think I am glad I did not follow this thread over the past few days. Thank you, DRJ, for explaining the history, even if the people you are explaining it to may not care to elevate your facts over their tribalism.

    swc, Ace did more than simply lump me into a supposed Washington Consensus. He also lumped me in with a group he called cowards and dishonest hacks, as DRJ noted above.

    I have forgiven him in my heart, not that he is likely to care.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  293. Yes, swc, and preferably they should use quotes. But I don’t know how background briefings work so what good are quotes if you can’t put a name with it?

    In any event, IMO it was a reasonable or at least excusable conclusion based on what the totality of what the WH official said. The WH could have corrected the report but it wants to make a big deal out of this.

    DRJ (15874d)

  294. You have had to deal with enough, Patterico.

    DRJ (15874d)

  295. I’ve noted you have made this argument about a half dozen times Dustin, and every time without actually going to the words used in the tweet — in other words, you are characterizing the tweet for your own purposes.

    No, I’m just telling the truth.

    The Failing @nytimes quotes “a senior White House official,” who doesn’t exist

    This official does exist. President Trump lied to the American people to say he “doesn’t exist.” President Trump insisted this official be anonymous as a condition of the briefing, and his criticism of “phony sources” was mendacious and extremely dishonest. Trump took advantage of his abuse of anonymous sources to condemn the use of his anonymous source and lie about the reality of the source’s existence. He then lied about this “impossible” thing, and you’ve chosen to fixate on that even though that’s obviously just another lie.

    It is absolutely fascinating, but depressing, to consider the impact Andrew Breitbart had on this blog and Ace of Spades and a few others. His passing left a void that was filled by a totally different attitude about integrity and accountability, and those who remained in that flock are not recognizable today.

    Take all branding off Ace’s blog and just compare some of his commentary ten years ago to his commentary today. It’s clearly the same man, but the passion is gone. This is a job now.

    My favorite Ace of Spades post, among many awesome posts, started

    A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once.

    He then began criticism of Kimberlin.

    My experience with these bastards is a less extreme than Patterico’s or Aaron’s or several others. No one got me fired or pointed a gun at my loved ones. But there was that post where Rauhauser mocked my best friend and fellow soldier who was killed in Iraq, blaming me. There was that post where Breitbart Unmasked posted fictitious legal documents about my father, and a fictitious divorce about me while doxing my wife. Or the pictures of my home and my car with the creepy undertone. Or a few other things along those lines. A lot of “anonymous” lying about me, basically. But a crystal clear email: delete my one blog post criticizing Brett Kimberlin for ruining many lives with a bomb, provide access to my email account so that they could use it to dox other people and pursue lawfare. Or else.

    Like Patterico, I never deleted anything and never played ball with these people. I understand that by talking more about the situation, I helped create a ‘streisand effect’ that diminished the benefits of these despicable actions. I also understood that by playing ball with these very evil people, I would be harming good people who would be more isolated. I would be making a form of terrorism work.

    I know Ace understands this math because of his heartfelt “a coward’s death” post. Then he went ahead and deleted the Kimberlin content, banned me for a comment simply asking him why he did it (the post included the word “Kimberlin” and may have been automatic). And he also lost his entire way as a blogger, becoming yet another consequence of Andrew Breitbart’s passing, and the sick twist from integrity and bravery to loyalty and paranoia that his websites demonstrate. These are related events, and it’s appropriate that Anon.Y.Mous references them while desperately carrying water for a lying politician.

    I read nothing from that time that our host thought that Ace was a coward.

    Ah, but Ace called this behavior cowardly himself.

    DRJ is right. Patterico was gracious. I think because there was a third party involved and no one wanted Ace’s loved ones to be doxed and smeared the way… well the way my loved ones were. I shut up about it simply because of Patterico’s view that Ace was faced with a tough decision. I don’t really agree though. Everyone standing tall was not just the morally right thing to do, it made more sense long-term for a journalist like Ace used to be.

    Why is this difficult? And as I said after, he knows what he’s done, he can defend himself. But, #banscript!

    Just minutes ago I wrote a polite comment asking Ace why he deleted his great criticism of Brett Kimberlin and was immediately banned, apparently by a script that bans people just for saying the name of a terrorist. No cussing, nothing rude, and in fact I complimented Ace for the quality of the posts he had deleted. Banned anyway. I challenge Ace’s fans to ask Ace why he did this. Of course if you use the word “Kimberlin” you’ll be banned. I try not to dwell on it. It just mucks up this blog’s comment sections more than they always seem to already be these days.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  296. #banscript!

    Patterico has not banned people over this topic.

    DRJ (15874d)

  297. All you lawyers subscribing to The NY Times B.S. is not surprising, it verifies your abuse of thought.

    mg

    I can’t stand the NYT. It’s a huge shame that one has to choose between a lying Republican president and the New York Times’s characterization of this briefing, which was apparently accurate aside from quibbling over saying “extremely unlikely” vs. “impossible” or something. Trump has done more to bolster the New York Times’s reputation than any of Trump’s critics have. All he had to do was admit the New York Times did indeed have this briefing, instead of lying that it didn’t, and clarify that the June 12 date was still possible. but the other issue is that Trump should be acting like the president of the USA. If he’s going to use that date, just use it. Stop tweeting about petty minor stuff like that. No one actually cares if this meeting takes place a week later. It doesn’t really matter. Lying about the minor stuff is a pathology.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  298. And speaking of a moral compass, nice to term someone a coward without having walked even five steps in his shoes. You’re quite the pit bull.

    Dustin has walked in Ace’s shoes, Estarcatus. You are talking about things you know nothing about. To those who experienced all this, your comments appear foolish. That sounds harsh but it is accurate. You owe Dustin an apology. You don’t seem like the kind who will realize it and do the right thing, but it’s owed whether you understand it or not.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  299. 309 comments later, Trump still lied and people still defend him.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  300. It’s a huge shame that one has to choose between a lying Republican president and the New York Times’s characterization of this briefing,

    Yeah, it’s a repel-repel dilemma, but I give NYT the edge because I have always enjoyed its Sunday crossword whereas Trump is 100% repellent.

    nk (dbc370)

  301. Thanks, man!

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  302. 576 “And yet they do. Unlike at the P blog. See how this works, P? Project much?”

    Right. I delete comments about Brett Kimberlin because he frightens me. Oh wait. I don’t. That’s here.

    Posted by: Patterico at March 15, 2018 10:59 AM (1F7J/)

    http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=374303#c28550999

    I don’t know what all scripts Ace is running, but this post by Patterico is still up AoSHQ. I do know that when someone is banned there, all their old comments disappear. So, Patterico mentioned Kimberlin in the comments, and since that comment is still up, I conclude he did not get banned.

    I do know there are moderators policing the comments for trolls. Someone new comes along and puts up a post that looks trollish, the mods may just ban them based on that alone. What they consider trollish is never clearly specified.

    BTW, I know they do ban people for commenting on old posts. Some kind of thing put in place because spammers were coming in and throwing up a bunch of crap on old threads. So, do NOT comment at the link provided, or you will likely get banned no matter what the content of the comment is.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  303. 302 — I appreciate that. I read everything he wrote in that post, and he did more than simply lump you in, as you note.

    But my first reaction to the simple fact that he did lump you in what to think “Wow, that’s pretty gratuitous”, since there isn’t a lot that warrants it in the context of his complaint about the “consensus”. It really looked like he was making an excuse to take a personal shot at you, without any obvious motive for feeling the need to do so. That must have been quite a surprise when you saw it in print the first time.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  304. NJRob (482a4e) — 5/28/2018 @ 8:34 am

    Your point is well taken. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

    felipe (023cc9)

  305. 303 — the breifing was on the record. The CNN story on the same briefing included a full quote of what the official said. The only rule for the briefing was that the WH official not be named.

    No one would have known who he was — I never heard of him before one a member of the press who didn’t attend put his name out. And the reason for that ground rule was the WH didn’t want mixed signals from named officials going out into the press.

    This is an example of “no good deed goes unpunished.” The WH offered the briefing, and selected the specific person to do the briefing, because he was personally involved in the planning that was taking place. He could answer questions with more specificity than the Press Office could provide.

    The WH didn’t need to provide this briefing. They could have left the WH press corps with unanswered questions, and the Press Office’s “I’m not certain about that, I’ll get back to you” responses as a big FU. But they didn’t — they arranged for a briefing by a guy who could answer their questions, and the NYT screwed them over.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  306. That must have been quite a surprise when you saw it in print the first time.

    It was, swc. I don’t read his blog anymore so I saw it because Haiku quoted it. Haiku is essentially a troll now here, and he quoted it in an apparent attempt to upset me. I have been working on my equanimity and I don’t think it would upset me today but it did then.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  307. The WH is taking the stance that they are more credible than the NYT and CNN. That is an argument that will never get much traction with some neverTrumpers.

    A story shows up that make Trump look bad and they blindly run with it.
    Like all media reports these days, these articles and video stories come with a mandatory “fisking” period of about a week.

    A good illustration of blind and/or dishonest treatment of Trump has been the recent trend on twitter of media fools tweeting pictures of ICE youth detention facilities, baby buses and excoriating Trump for them when the pictures were taken during the Obama Administration.

    The media is dishonest, the top end of the CIA, FBI, and whatever the hell Clapper did is rotten.
    They treated Trumps campaign like that useful idiot videographer they jailed over Benghazi.
    They found a little interference by Russian bots and turned into “the story”. The number of living people, not bots who actually read and retweeted, emailed their nonsense was statistically miniscule.
    Hillary lost fair and square, the people, not Russia spoke. Trump is President and he is not afraid to use American power economically, militarily, to give power and bargaining chips to the diplomats.

    My guess is Russian, Chinese, Iranian money is flowing into the “useful idiots” in media and academia, because they are afraid of the power the USA represents. A good example of style difference between Trump Admin. and Obama Admin. is approach to China. Obama’s people approached China like a hat in hand borrower deeply in debt to a bank. Trump’s people approach China using the power that debt gives them “big deal, you want your money back, work with us” leverage combined with the leverage we can exert, for example, on their biggest phone builder. Trumps people showed China we can put one of their largest companies in the sector out of business if we want and John Kerry is aghast at an approach that is so gauche

    steveg (a9dcab)

  308. 395 — My guess why Ace’s blog auto-bans people for mentioning Kimberlin is that he’s probably obligated to do so under the terms of the settlement he reached, and not doing so would open him up to being sued again for breach of that settlement. There might well be a liquidated damages clause in the settlement which he’d be on the hook for if he was found to be in breach of the settlement agreement.

    All of which underscores Patrick’s view that fighting Kimberlin, and winning — even with the cost — was the only real hope for being free of that entanglement long-term.

    Ace might think that the settlement go him out from under — but its just the opposite with a vexations litigant like Kimberlin. Until a court slows him down, having any kind of “agreement” with Kimberlin just writes the opening paragraph of his next lawsuit.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  309. 308 — I didn’t know about Dustin’s experience with Kimberlin, and knowing that now adds another dimension in my own mind to what he writes here. I’m better informed, and hopefully will be a better correspondent with respect to him.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  310. 309 — I’m not “defending” Trump. The NYT article was a mischaracterization. Trump called them out.

    To me it would be a “whole lotta nuthin” except for the fact that the press got its panties in a bunch last week over the “spy” v. “informant” dichotomy they tried to impose.

    Sauce for the goose.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  311. 318.

    See my 312. Dustin doesn’t say which post he commented on, but if he was immediately banned, it sounds like it was an old post. Any comments on old post get people banned. They should tell people that at the comment box, or just remove the comment box for old posts, but it is what it is.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  312. 316 — … I have been working on my equanimity…”

    Aren’t we all!!!! LOL.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  313. the last time, I saw a non samizdat piece about kimberlin, was a little over two years ago, it’s rather striking I guess he really is like Voldemort, he shall not be named, apparently he will not be held accountable either, we aren’t the enemy,

    narciso (d1f714)

  314. My guess why Ace’s blog auto-bans people for mentioning Kimberlin is that he’s probably obligated to do so under the terms of the settlement he reached

    Yes, you are surely correct. Also that this really ensnares Ace in a way the guys who didn’t play ball aren’t. I think there’s a lot more going on with Ace’s change in tone than just an appreciation for Trump. I think there’s more a ‘well F it at this point’ sentiment.

    We’ve all been absolutely frustrated with certain degrees of political correctness, with bashing of conservatives, with the way Obamacare was pushed through against the wishes of the people, with immigration problems that were close to lawlessness. Anyone can understand why Ace and others embraced Trump as a push back. But call it what it is: an extreme and desperate move because of an extreme situation. Pretending Trump is palatable actually undermines this point.

    Trump’s been strangely up-front that he lies to the American people. He boasted that he doesn’t care anymore about his claims that the election was rigged. “You’ve been hearing me say it’s a rigged system. But now I don’t say it anymore because I won. Okay? It’s true. You know, now I don’t care.” Or explaining his repeated and specific promise to prosecute Hillary was a lie that “played well before the election” but now he doesn’t care. I could go on and on, but that’s tedious and my heart isn’t in it now that I blasted Ace over much darker stuff. Point being: Trump was elected because of how bad the alternative is, so there’s no need to carry water for him. The worse he is, the louder the statement, so we might as well be upfront about it.

    There’s a strong chance I’ll even support Trump in the next election (if he runs) just because of nominations. But it will be “I’m voting for Trump because the other side is actually worse!” Trump doesn’t deserve more than this.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  315. felipe 314,

    That isn’t how I see it. I am not giving legal advice but this is a law-oriented blog. Thus, even though I think we are joking about betting, some situations might pose bigger legal problems than others. I think betting while giving a cut to the House is one of those situations.

    DRJ (15874d)

  316. I don’t think that was a serious wager, so guess what david sanger, has a new book coming out, guess the topic cyberwarfare, I’m sure there will be plenty of linking from fire eye (they were the credit monitors re Equifax, they came up with apt 28, which crowdstrike appropriated,

    narciso (d1f714)

  317. Dustin,

    I didn’t know about your past with that scum Kimberlin or what he and his kind did to you, your loved ones and your brothers in arms. My apologies for harsh remarks in the past.

    I know we will disagree again as we differ on what is best for our nation, but I will try and remain professional in disagreement. Challenges await.

    NJRob (b00189)

  318. 316… you are essentially incorrect, it was posted so that you could see how your peer had mischaracterized you and would have a chance to respond. I then posted the play-by-play on comments that clearly indicated you were giving much better than you got. So get it right.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  319. which it’s a uniquely Russian code, or even particular to the fsb, the expulsion, the indictments all hang on that attribution, this is why the house report, even deleted the citations to the pieces that referenced their work,

    narciso (d1f714)

  320. Go back and read through the comments and then I’ll accept your apology.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  321. Thanks, NJRob. God Bless the people who gave us the freedom to say whatever we want! No apologies needed for words on the internet, but I express the same.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  322. Haiku is not a troll. He’s a strong, loyal, passionate conservative who sees the harm that is happening to his nation. He responds instead of being meek. What’s wrong with that.

    He’s also been subject to much hostility since November 2016 for the sin of defending the President when he deems him correct. Why is that such a mortal sin around here?

    NJRob (b00189)

  323. so why did this wiley character, go after scl/Cambridge analytica, because it was the only such commercial instrument in the campaign, that was pro brexit, haklyut, orbis, probably diligence,
    re some of their clients were against,

    narciso (d1f714)

  324. Today of all days is a good time to reflect upon the blessings we’ve received from men who were better than us and made the sacrifice that allows us to live in comfort.

    We see the difference between us and England is never wider than today when it comes to expressing ourselves freely and openly.

    NJRob (b00189)

  325. they see 1984 as a how to guy, I mentioned dennis glover’s ‘last man in europe’ a novel about how orwell came upon 1984,

    narciso (d1f714)

  326. 324 — Trump is a huckster and a salesman. “Puffery” right up to and including purposeful untruths are part of the bag of tricks. Never accepting responsibility and blame for failure are also personality characteristics which are dangerous and unappealing.

    But my complaints about NeverTrumpers and the press corps is that their criticisms of him are sometimes themselves untrue, or they rely on assumptions not supported by the facts. The assumptions play into the generally accepted narrative about his character, so they substitute for facts many times. But when they are contrary to the facts, they deserve criticism.

    Yesterday’s kefluffle is a prime example. The NYT wrote a “straight” news piece with a built in narrative — Trump was out of touch with his staff or doesn’t understand what’s taking place. That narrative underscores about 90% of their straight news coverage.

    They chose language which was consistent with the narrative, rather than report straight up what the official actually said.

    I’m not defending Trump’s tweet — he said the NYT “quoted” the WH official, when they did not.

    My point in pushing back on the criticism of Trump’s tweet was premised on the unfairness of the original NYT story, and pointing out that it came against the backdrop of the “spy” vs. “informant” semantic exercise engaged in by the press last week in order to minimize what Trump said and to enforce the “White Hat” nature of the Obama DOJ operation mounted against his campaign.

    Again, the facts about that aren’t in dispute — the press wants to play semantic games to minimize the damage to the story narrative they’ve been pushing for 18 months.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  327. Thanks, NJ Rob. Seriously, I invite anyone with an interest to read back through the comments related to Patterico’s incident with Ace. Judge for yourself who has mischaracterized it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  328. #302

    I was able to read the history myself. I was a regular reader.then.

    #308

    Uhm, no. Only Ace understands Ace’s decision, though you seemed to as well. At least Dustin is consistent, he always termed him a coward. I know the other side of the story, as well. And you’re mode of argument “I doubt that YOU’ll” understand!!!!” is trite. You’ll notice (but probably not!) that I am free with my apologies, as I understand my own fallibility. You don’t seem too quick to apologize, even when it is pointed out that your criticisms are completely over the top.

    Any man may play the fool. Perhaps I have here. Or perhaps not. I’ve been through a trial by fire as well, with no hope of gain except a moral victory. I stuck it out, and went bankrupt in the process. But, I’m not going to call any man a coward for walking a different path. That very experience led me to this blog back in the day. Have you walked in my shoes? No. Has anyone else? No. Every situation is unique, with its twists and turns and dark days. Have I walked in your shoes? No. Or Dustin’s? No. Would I feel I have the right to condem your behaviors in a legal proceeding fraught with real danger, including the potential to lose your life, if you were to call me a moral coward? I pray to the Lord I would not. I would certainly engage on the merits, though, and perhaps demand an apology. What Ace did was wrong. What you did was wrong. At least own your part. “But you don’t seem to be the type of person to do that”.

    You come across with the apology first, for your offensive comments directed at me, then I’ll come across with my own. I’ve seen you act in bad faith too many times when an apology demanded was given. Perhaps reflect on your own behavior for a bit. You don’t cut much slack, Dustin even less. But to err is human. I do so on a daily basis.

    Estarcatus (fd736a)

  329. I’m too lazy to find it, but many months ago in comments on this blog, I was trying to persuade someone else to enter into a friendly wager with me, and we were discussing who might be a stakeholder. I expressed doubt that our host would agree to so volunteer, but our host left a comment which suggested that he might be amenable in at least some such circumstances, not as a regular habit but an exception. Otherwise I’d not have presumed to propose him.

    My offer re June 12 — which I’ll hold open, per its terms (not some other, different bet that you might want to propose about Trump meeting Kim this year), until midnight Houston time tonight, before I put my $100 bill back in my wallet — doesn’t include any cut for the “house” or the stakeholder for his services, and yes, that makes a big difference, legally and practically. I point out that although I said I’d be happy to consider other stakeholders for the task, no one has taken me up on my bet as made.

    I repeat: It’s not hard to find examples of deliberate press bias. Believing this to be an example of deliberate press bias — the difference between “impossible” and something deliberately made by Pottinger to sound quite close to that — is an extremely poor choice of examples, by Trump or by anyone here.

    @ swc (#286): Why do you insist on continuing to call him “White House Official” when we know the man’s name and have his voice on audio? And you’re wrong that the terms of the briefing forbade quotes. The terms were “off camera,” and “not for broadcast,” and that Pottinger could be referred to as a “senior White House official.” When asked if the contents of the briefing were embargoed until the end of the briefing, Raj Shaw said, “No, you guys can report on it.” That would include quotes so long as attributed without naming the name or job title, and indeed, the reporting from the briefing did include quotes. The “lost time” and “ten minutes” comments were indeed quoted. They were the closest to a direct and definitive answer that Pottinger gave on this topic.

    Kudos to you for at least being honest enough to admit that in substance, the report was accurate: “The June 12 date might very well be impossible,” you wrote. If the NYT had written exactly that, it would have been slightly more accurate and a better paraphrase for avoiding an absolute pronouncement that Pottinger stopped just barely short of making himself. “Unlikely” or “difficult” suggests hope that Pottinger pointedly did not suggest. Instead he chose to use hyperbole to ridicule that as a ridiculous improbability.

    No one has yet taken me up on my suggestion that you point us to the “ray of hope” or other indication in anything Pottinger said which might have suggested that he believed June 12 to still be a possible date for the summit, even in theory, and even presuming the POTUS were (stupidly!) willing to dispense with not only the advance preparation that the North Koreans blocked by going radio silent, but the formulation of an agenda. You were included in that invitation, swc. Will you now acknowledge that no such “ray of hope” can be gleaned from anything Pottinger said?

    If news media had reported, “Trump senior advisor holds out ray of hope that summit may still happen on June 12,” wouldn’t that have been affirmatively misleading — a deliberate lie? Again, I’ll stick with “practically impossible” as a more accurate paraphrase, but I absolutely reject any suggestion that this report misled the public in any material respect.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  330. But my complaints about NeverTrumpers and the press corps is that their criticisms of him are sometimes themselves untrue

    SWC, it’s very easy to assume the worst about him, partly because I’m just still shocked that America has resorted to these choices. Hillary or Trump? We’re better than this, or at least I thought we were. So yeah, bias is a problem for Trump’s critics because Trump definitely pushes buttons on family values, decorum, respect, and integrity.

    It’s much like my long-running BS with Haiku. I’ve read over old threads with him and found it remarkable how pissed off I am at the effort to piss me off. Who do I blame for this? Well the right person to hold responsible for my attitude is myself!

    My point in pushing back on the criticism of Trump’s tweet was premised on the unfairness of the original NYT story, and pointing out that it came against the backdrop of the “spy” vs. “informant” semantic exercise engaged in by the press last week in order to minimize what Trump said and to enforce the “White Hat” nature of the Obama DOJ operation mounted against his campaign.

    I do not want the NYT to enjoy any credibility. I know they will exploit any reputation they have for politics. They are, to me, simply the left’s version of Gateway Pundit. Similarly, I don’t want hyper partisan bureaucrats to use the DOJ the way Lois Lerner used the IRS and then get away with it. But I prefer George W Bush’s conduct, which I found largely above reproach, to this rolling up sleeves and diving into the ugly fight. It make look like Trump is handling this better if you’re on his side, but at the end of these scandals, I think the left is benefiting enormously.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  331. And I have erred. I would not condemn a man, and I should not also minimize to make a petty point. Dustin, you were put through the ringer. I had forgotten that. I will steer clear of this topic when addressing you in the future. I have great sympathy to what you were subjected to. As I also have with our host. Brett is an evil man. I am sorry that both of you had to dance with that devil. In my own situation, I never had to worry about my personal safety, only my sanity. You faced far worse.

    Estarcatus (fd736a)

  332. Again, I’ll stick with “practically impossible” as a more accurate paraphrase, but I absolutely reject any suggestion that this report misled the public in any material respect.

    Maybe Beldar is biased too, but this is exactly how I see it. It sounds like the other people at this briefing also see it this way. I would much prefer we not need the layers of fact checkers and paraphrasers and editors. Who do we hold responsible for this problem, of not the people demanding the briefing be conducted without any recording, and anonymously? Same people making these stipulations are complaining about anonymous sources!

    So we’re arguing over a very minor footnote point, but the larger lesson is that truth is its own solution. The NYT should have been permitted to provide an exact quote, naming an exact official. Let’s assume they ‘lied’ about Trump and this date. Well firstly, why lie about this? No one cares if the meeting happens a week later. Second, why give them the cover to do so? If the NYT is always gonna lie, you want to record every conversation. You want direct quotes.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  333. I think betting while giving a cut to the House is one of those situations.
    DRJ (15874d) — 5/28/2018 @ 10:39 am

    I completely agree. I said as much in my #251. I thought Beldar’s enthusiasm got the better of Scorcher’s judgment which resulted in Scorcher’s ill-advised asperity.

    felipe (023cc9)

  334. Go back and read through the comments and then I’ll accept your apology.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/28/2018 @ 10:46 am

    Haiku’s comments about that Ace post, starting at comment 99: Haiku posted this link to Ace’s post:

    99. In important news… http://ace.mu.nu/archives/374306.php

    Colonel Haiku (f0e797) — 3/13/2018 @ 3:19 pm

    His next comments were 124, replying to DCSCA and 140 to Hoagie regarding DCSCA. No one was discussing Patterico’s mention at the Ace post, so Haiku posted this at 153 [still no mention of Patterico]:

    Ace is fairly well spun up on all of this, and he goes after several people who he claims have bought into the “Washington Consensus” a be-hairplugged Jonah Goldberg sputtered about yesterday… http://ace.mu.nu/archives/374303.php

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/13/2018 @ 6:00 pm

    A comment at 156 about Trump and Tillerson, and then comment 161, a lengthy excerpt from Ace’s post — and the first time he mentioned Patterico’s name. There was another lengthy excerpt minutes later at comment 165.

    When Patterico finally commented on Ace’s post at 9:08 PM, this was Haiku’s response 3 minutes later at comment 185:

    It’s on!!! May the best ruffian win.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/14/2018 @ 9:11 pm

    And 190:

    Sweet! But truly disappointing, as it sounds like it ended in the 1st round with a thunderous haymaker.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/14/2018 @ 9:22 pm

    And 192:

    That raises some interesting questions…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/14/2018 @ 9:23 pm

    Haiku resumed the next day. He clearly loved the fireworks.

    DRJ (15874d)

  335. Because of the point of the whole kerfluffle is to cover with a pillow. If they choose not to cover the summit, they have an excuse,
    E,

    narciso (d1f714)

  336. We see the difference between us and England is never wider than today when it comes to expressing ourselves freely and openly.

    NJRob (b00189) — 5/28/2018 @ 10:50 am

    Absolutely right. Well said.

    DRJ (15874d)

  337. odds are pretty damn good Leggy Meggy’s already pregnant with the bastard prince’s first child

    she just has the one job you know which does not include speaking up for the civil rights of her subjects, who do not have any

    in this she is much like the smelly old slut-queen

    I’m glad we did revolution on these people

    they really are nasty

    happy memorial day especially to people who lost loved ones in the revolution against the crown cause that was a really special sacrifice what those people made for us

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  338. @ swc (#286): Why do you insist on continuing to call him “White House Official” when we know the man’s name and have his voice on audio? And you’re wrong that the terms of the briefing forbade quotes. The terms were “off camera,” and “not for broadcast,” and that Pottinger could be referred to as a “senior White House official.” When asked if the contents of the briefing were embargoed until the end of the briefing, Raj Shaw said, “No, you guys can report on it.” That would include quotes so long as attributed without naming the name or job title, and indeed, the reporting from the briefing did include quotes. The “lost time” and “ten minutes” comments were indeed quoted. They were the closest to a direct and definitive answer that Pottinger gave on this topic.

    Kudos to you for at least being honest enough to admit that in substance, the report was accurate: “The June 12 date might very well be impossible,” you wrote. If the NYT had written exactly that, it would have been slightly more accurate and a better paraphrase for avoiding an absolute pronouncement that Pottinger stopped just barely short of making himself. “Unlikely” or “difficult” suggests hope that Pottinger pointedly did not suggest. Instead he chose to use hyperbole to ridicule that as a ridiculous improbability.

    No one has yet taken me up on my suggestion that you point us to the “ray of hope” or other indication in anything Pottinger said which might have suggested that he believed June 12 to still be a possible date for the summit, even in theory, and even presuming the POTUS were (stupidly!) willing to dispense with not only the advance preparation that the North Koreans blocked by going radio silent, but the formulation of an agenda. You were included in that invitation, swc. Will you now acknowledge that no such “ray of hope” can be gleaned from anything Pottinger said?

    If news media had reported, “Trump senior advisor holds out ray of hope that summit may still happen on June 12,” wouldn’t that have been affirmatively misleading — a deliberate lie? Again, I’ll stick with “practically impossible” as a more accurate paraphrase, but I absolutely reject any suggestion that this report misled the public in any material respect.

    I’m only using “WH Official” because I’ve been quoting the story, Trump’s tweeet, and the CNN report. That’s the way he’s described, so I’ve used the same description. His name is Pottinger. Had anyone here heard of him before this blew up??

    And I was the first one to mention here that there was an audio posted on Twitter, and that Pottinger never once said June 12 was “impossible” as the NYT wrote he “said” — their word …. “a senior White House official said ….”

    And you are wrong to say I said quotes weren’t allowed — I point out more than once to others that the briefing was on the record, CNN quoted Pottinger accurately in their story, so the NYT was not in a position of having to “paraphrase” (your word, which was wrong), or “characterize” what Pottinger said. They could quote him, as others did. The only ground rule was that he not be identified by name.

    I have not been able to read the NYT actual story because its behind their paywall. But I haven’t read anywhere that they did quote his exact words. That seemed to me, from the reporting by others, to be the basis of the entire dispute — other news outlets reported his exact words and let the readers draw their own conclusion, whereas the NYT did not report his exact words, and instead drew a potentially false conclusion themselves and attributed it to him.

    And re the “substance being accurate” — that wasn’t the point. The point is whether the writing of a straight news story was done intentionally in a fashion to fit the continuing NYT narrative that Trump doesn’t know what’s going on, and his statements contradicting his staff are proof of his ignorance. IMO that’s why they chose the language they used — not because in the view of the reporters is was an “accurate” characterization of what Pottinger said.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  339. Thanks, NJ Rob. Seriously, I invite anyone with an interest to read back through the comments related to Patterico’s incident with Ace. Judge for yourself who has mischaracterized it.

    It’s possible that I misremembered your seeming intent, perhaps by viewing it through the lens of your consistent trolling comments these days. It’s not a fight that’s worth my finding the comments to read them so I’ll accept your representation and apologize. If you want to claim you’re not being a troll nowadays, though, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. That’s how I view most of your comments lately.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  340. I can only offer my praise but you and Patterico are strong, Dustin.

    DRJ (15874d)

  341. The haymaker, DRJ, was Patterico dropping Ace to the canvas with a knockout punch. I did continue the next day, what were the comments that were made then?

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  342. When a troll quotes someone else’s nasty comments about the host, they risk having the host seeing the quotation as another attempt at trolling. It might be useful to make extra clear that’s not your intent in such a situation. Free advice, worth what you paid.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  343. I did read them (see 348) but Patterico is kinder than I am.

    DRJ (15874d)

  344. Or at least more charitable.

    DRJ (15874d)

  345. Not to say I didn’t enjoy the fireworks, but I clearly stated – per my recollection – that our host set them all straight.

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  346. You certainly enjoyed it, Haiku. I don’t think you cared who won. You just wanted a fight, as trolls do.

    DRJ (15874d)

  347. But go ahead and cherrypick if you choose.

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  348. Had anyone here heard of him before this blew up??

    Nope. He now has an amusing claim to fame though and I hope his friends and family are making a lot of fun out of this.

    The point is whether the writing of a straight news story was done intentionally in a fashion to fit the continuing NYT narrative that Trump doesn’t know what’s going on

    Ah. So let’s think about this. Trump is fighting against a narrative, so he’s really fighting to improve his administration’s reputation. And are we sure Trump successfully contradicted this narrative? He grabbed the attention, seized the issue, by overstating the NYT’s ‘mistake’ (which I don’t really believe was one, but whatever). But even if Trump does succeed in showing the NYT made a mistake, he still suffers from the impression he was very reactive and confused at best, dishonest at worst. Everyone already thought the NYT had an axe to grind. They have those New York values, so to speak, and are loyal democrats. And they are loving being at the center of this particular controversy.

    How would Bush have handled this? Probably by ignoring it completely. And Trump’s fans will note this was Bush’s signature mistake. He never fought back, so over time every meme against him became a fact (lied about WMDs, for example).

    The solution is to communicate directly to the American people, but remain above the fray as much as possible.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  349. I can only offer my praise but you and Patterico are strong, Dustin.

    DRJ (15874d) — 5/28/2018 @ 11:45 am

    Your praise is worth a lot to me, after years of watching you remain calm and sensible in conversations where I struggle with that. Thanks!

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  350. And OCD afflicted people must one day deal with it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  351. Link or reprint any comment you want. I showed what happened that day — how you kept raising it, waited expectantly for Patterico to see it, and delighted when he did. Then you did sports-like commentary of the “fight.” If you think later comments change how that looks, I hope you will show us.

    DRJ (15874d)

  352. No one has yet taken me up on my suggestion that you point us to the “ray of hope” or other indication in anything Pottinger said which might have suggested that he believed June 12 to still be a possible date for the summit, even in theory, and even presuming the POTUS were (stupidly!) willing to dispense with not only the advance preparation that the North Koreans blocked by going radio silent, but the formulation of an agenda. You were included in that invitation, swc. Will you now acknowledge that no such “ray of hope” can be gleaned from anything Pottinger said?

    And this is infected by anti-Trump bias.

    Trump has made no secret of the fact that he cares little for “norms” of past administrations. He can rightfully ask “What has paying attention to such “norms” accomplished in the past?”

    I think its quite likely that something will take place in Singapore in June 12. Whether all the advance planning that might normally get done is in fact accomplished by that date remains to be seen. I think Trump signaled his intention to press ahead by sending an advance team to N.K. a couple days ago to move things along more quickly.

    Trump is not a politician, and whose to say the “norms” of standard and historical “diplomacy” are the best tools for reaching an agreement on an issue that has bedeviled the past 3 Administrations going back to Clinton?

    Trump is a “deal-maker” — whether that is an accurate portrayal or not. His thinking –based on what I’ve read — is that deals get made when the principals are in a room together, not by underlings parsing out the terms of a joint communique. I think he could care less about a joint communique — normally written in advance — that announces the terms of a deal normally reached in advance.

    We don’t have a deal with the Norks, but Trump thinks he can come away from Singapore with a deal — or not. But that outcome is going to come in Singapore, and not before.

    This approach relies on momentum. I think he felt like he had momentum 2 weeks ago, and then it was lost. There’s a chance to recapture the momentum and he’s attempting to do so, but that means going to Singapore, even if the agenda going in is less teased out that might otherwise have been the case.

    I think Pottinger held out a “ray of hope” when he said “The ball is in North Korea’s court” — meaning if they do what they need to do, then we’ll be there. But the US can’t control what the Nork’s do, so its an unknowable unknown to quote Rumsfeld.

    Also, when Pottinger said the following:

    but there’s a certain amount of actual dialogue that needs to take place at the working level with your counterparts to ensure that, uh, the agenda is clear in the minds of those two leaders when they sit down to actually meet and talk and negotiate and hopefully make a deal.

    Who makes that judgment — whether sufficient actual dialogue at the working level has taken place???

    Trump, with the input of Pompeo, Bolton, and Mattis.

    Not Pottinger.

    I don’t think Trump ascribes to the same notions about “how much is enough” as do the foreign policy establishment and the press.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  353. Right the 16 words that w retracted, what credit did he get for that, right none, rove didn’t care to fully challenge every cretinoud lie the left including kimberlins peanut gallerry pulled out of their hindquarters

    narciso (d1f714)

  354. A biographical note, porringer sr was the one who uncovered mark felt was leaking straight from the grand jury, but he didn’t call attention to it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  355. “The ball is in North Korea’s court,” in this context, is not a ray of hope for believing that the summit will happen on June 12.

    For someone not defending Trump, you manage to produce a lot of words defending Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  356. In his defense, Haiku said this the next day, which speaks well of him and shows he supports Patterico on his blog:

    I read the comments made over there thru the early evening yesterday. Patterico recounted what had transpired and it should be obvious to all that he shouldn’t have been included with the likes of Goldberg, Kristol, etc.. I agreed with Ace’s basic point about the “Washington Consensus”. My $.02…

    Colonel Haiku (33b771) — 3/16/2018 @ 9:47 am”>

    I believe the way Haiku raised Ace’s post shows he relished the fight far more than he cared whether Patterico was treated fairly.

    DRJ (15874d)

  357. A biographical note, porringer sr was the one who uncovered mark felt was leaking straight from the grand jury, but he didn’t call attention to it.

    narciso

    Wow! Fascinating how small that world really is.

    rove didn’t care to fully challenge every cretinoud lie

    Rove wasn’t all wrong either. But for Obama deliberately dropping a certain ball, we would view the Bush administration as extremely successful in promoting freedom and peace. Controversial in many respects because of the freedom we have lost. I do wish Bush had taken his case to the American people, but his communication skills really seemed very limited compared to when he was Governor. I don’t know what pressures or secrets or other factors caused this. I suppose the same factors are in play with Trump’s concern about this date, which is bizarre from my perspective.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  358. 360 — he’s not engaging the NYT. That would be the case if the Press Sec. took up the subject with the press corps in the briefing room.

    He goes right over the head of the NYT to his Twitter followers. He’s not fighting the narrative, he’s simply pointing out that folks shouldn’t believe everything they read just because its in the NYT.

    The press them comes back with spittle flying from their mouths, screaming that Trump is lying about them on Twitter.

    Yes, Bush ignored the criticism of him by the press pretty much for 8 years. And he went from a 24 seat majority in the House in 2002 to a 21 seat minority in 2004, and a 78 seat minority in the House in 2008 when he left office.

    That’s what happens when a GOP President lets himself be defined by the national media, without making any effort to rebut the dishonest attacks by a press that claims to be neutral.

    Trump moves on.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  359. Mr. Ace is a good person I don’t understand this impulse among some people to make him out to be anything other than a gentleman and a valuable internet presence

    he makes my life better plus they have art pictures there every day!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  360. 367 — you equate push back on unfair criticism as defending Trump. A common over-simplication.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  361. That happens to modern Presidents during wartime, swc.

    DRJ (15874d)

  362. He’s not fighting the narrative, he’s simply pointing out that folks shouldn’t believe everything they read just because its in the NYT.

    But surely his supporters can agree Trump’s commentary about truthfulness should have been more accurate itself. If I call someone a liar in terms that are much more plainly lies, it’s going to backfire!

    Yes, Bush ignored the criticism of him by the press pretty much for 8 years. And he went from a 24 seat majority in the House in 2002 to a 21 seat minority in 2004, and a 78 seat minority in the House in 2008 when he left office.

    Indeed.

    That’s what happens when a GOP President lets himself be defined by the national media,

    The contrary position is that this is what happens when you thoughtfully spend your political capital with purpose. It was spent. Trump is also spending, but I’m not clear on what he’s gaining. Either way, both Bush and Trump have been unsuccessful in combating their critics. One goes way too far, way too quickly, with all the tweets, some in the middle of the night, appealing only on an emotional level. The other didn’t fight the narrative much at all.

    It is good that you and I agree that the GOP president is ultimately responsible for his party’s success in midterm elections. I wonder if Trump’s supporters will still be saying this in December.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  363. Next you’ll be asking me how my health is, DRJ. You like a good scrap too.

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  364. Is it cherrypicking to note that I don’t see any comment by you defending Patterico at Ace’s post, Haiku?

    Look, I don’t expect people to roam the internet defending Patterico. I do it on rare occasions but not often, and no one has to do it. But you wanted people to see this. It looks like you wanted a fight. If you thought Patterico was so right and Ace was so wrong, why didn’t you say it there?

    DRJ (15874d)

  365. No, I will not pry into your personal life, Haiku. I care about people here but I won’t bother the ones who aren’t interested in my concern.

    DRJ (15874d)

  366. I haven’t commented there in probably a year or longer, DRJ. Probably commented a total of 20 to 25 times before then. I have no account there, nor do I want one.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  367. dropping the ball, that’s funny, is there any concession he did not grant our foes, from the Taliban in Qatar, to caracas, and most everywhere in between,

    narciso (d1f714)

  368. I suppose I could’ve opened an account there and done that, but it never occurred to me. He took care of it all by himself, and did so easily.

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  369. You do cut yourself slack, DRJ. That’s understandable.

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  370. I don’t have an account, and none was required at the time this discussion occurred.

    DRJ (15874d)

  371. I care about everyone I “know” here but I learned that some don’t welcome my concern. It is making me more careful about expressing it but not thinking it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  372. I did not know that. That’s how much interest I had in commenting there.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  373. The point at which one realizes the ruling class does not wish to deal with real problems… https://www.apnews.com/65867a0ed0d247bc8d18c159d10aaf99

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  374. “The point is whether the writing of a straight news story was done intentionally in a fashion to fit the continuing NYT narrative that Trump doesn’t know what’s going on, and his statements contradicting his staff are proof of his ignorance. IMO that’s why they chose the language they used — not because in the view of the reporters is was an “accurate” characterization of what Pottinger said.

    They published a fairly straightforward lie to push the Groupthink CW.

    They got caught.

    They got mad.

    They made it worse by playing the pathetic “does not exist” card without bothering to check the facts.

    Then they realized the person does not exist and Trump was right.

    They turned anger up to 11. Anger is supercharged when you realize you messed up.

    You can tell that even the die-hard shills are cracking when they start dissing people for responding to the OP by using the exact same language to describe the ‘official’ as the OP. Add to that having to lie that the briefing was not on the record (which SWC pointed out was not true, only the official’s name was).

    This was a small fire created by bad reporting upon which the OP and others decided to pour gasoline.

    The best part though was excusing the lies of the Times because Trump lies too and gropes women to boot (I know those weren’t the exact words, I’m paraphrasing to explain).

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  375. Well said, harkin. But they’ve gotta keep the lights on…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  376. Then they realized the person does not exist and Trump was right.

    The emperor has clothes, and they are *spectacular*.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  377. TDS in a nutshell – for some reason J Scarborough still has a 2 year old Trump tweet under his skin.

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump
    Joe Scarborough initially endorsed Jeb Bush and Jeb crashed, then John Kasich and that didn’t work. Not much power or insight!
    11:03 AM · May 6, 2016

    – – –

    Joe Scarborough
    @JoeNBC
    Given how you’ve conducted yourself in the 2+ years since this tweet, I’d say my preferring Jeb and John to you showed great insight.

    – – –

    Stephen Miller
    @redsteeze
    Is that why you turned your show over to Jeb & John 4 days a week for the entire primary season wait

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  378. Then they realized the person does not exist and Trump was right.

    You’re talking about Michael Flynn associate and hedge fund executive Matt Pottinger? You’re saying it’s a straightforward lie to say this man exists? But he clearly does exist.

    But in the same comment, you note that the briefing occurred and that you believe the only stipulation was that Pottinger’s name remain off record. So you know he does exist and that Trump claiming he is a phony source is not accurate. Trump complained about anonymous sources as ‘fake’ but it was Trump that directed he be anonymous, and Trump clearly knew he was a real person.

    the die-hard shills are cracking

    Bill Clinton had that same way of lying. Just deny deny deny, forever and ever. Deny on the flimsiest technicalities in the face of direct proof. Play word games while intentionally misleading everyone. And project onto the people speaking the truth that they are being dishonest. The vast right wing conspiracy.

    You can’t even show that the New York Times wasn’t being fair to paraphrase the administration’s claim that the June 12 date is impossible. The effort to show this part to be untrue has been very weak. But to insist Trump told the truth that Pottinger doesn’t exist, while projecting ‘die hard shill’ status onto those who note that it’s very clear Trump’s statement was untruthful is fascinating to me. What possible benefit is there in Trump’s fans insisting that they have no credibility, ever?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  379. 364:

    1. known unknown, not unknown unknown (pedantic point, but…)

    2. I suspect the reason they did not want Pottinger named was they are managing a process of diplomacy where their words have impact on North Korea, China, South Korea, etc. The main voices are clearly designated as Trump and Pompeo. It’s nothing sneaky not wanting Pattinger named. Just about not confusing the principals.

    3. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think that the never Trumpers stoop at times to automatic criticism.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  380. “The emperor has clothes, and they are *spectacular*.

    I think it’s spectacular that after almost 400 comments neither you nor anyone else can name the person who The NY Times claimed told them it was impossible.

    You believe the person exists, yet can’t name him.

    Kind of like believing the emperor had clothes, but not being able to see them.

    Nice projection.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  381. Lawdy the conundrum I kicked up while I was gone…
    If you pay close attention, skorcher stipulates 10% for the house. This is where the bet crosses the line. While Beldar’s propositions have been simply “friendly.”

    felipe (023cc9) — 5/28/2018 @ 7:48 am

    …and similar…So y’all are OK with the sin, it’s the act of common human decency that is the problem. Lawyers, no self-awareness. SMDH. OK, my bet is still open for takers and the house can go pound sand, wink-wink-nudge-nudge. Is that how y’all like it better? Dirty and under the table? And in keeping with the spirit of this thread, I never said that.

    Skorcher (a6a46d)

  382. Duque, if he makes it past the runoff, will reverse some of the mistakes, pastrana and uribe, who can’t agree what to have for lunch, Santos has made.

    narciso (d1f714)

  383. “You’re talking about Michael Flynn associate and hedge fund executive Matt Pottinger? You’re saying it’s a straightforward lie to say this man exists? But he clearly does exist.”

    So you declare that Pottinger was the one the Times claimed said that talks on June 12 would be impossible?

    Please reference me a quote, I can wait.

    If not, please put away the shovel.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  384. If it had been Obama, he would have already tapped nakamuras phone.

    narciso (d1f714)

  385. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

    Bill Clinton would later explain that this statement to the American people was “legally accurate.” I imagine Daily Kos still exists, and if I asked, a whole lot of people would cheer eachother on defending the accuracy of this statement, because, after all, no one ever proved what Clinton meant by “sexual relations.”

    The Failing @nytimes quotes “a senior White House official,” who doesn’t exist, as saying “even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.” WRONG AGAIN! Use real people, not phony sources.

    Trump was aware that Pottinger is a senior white house official, a real person, a non-phony source, and that the White House insisted he be an anonymous source. Trump’s fully aware that the NYT did not directly quote this man at all, and therefore did not misquote him. Trump is fully aware that Pottinger did in fact make plain that a June 12 meeting was extremely unlikely, and akin to having a meeting in ten seconds. Trump said the man “doesn’t exist,” and the defense offered is that Trump knew exactly who this man was and what he said and disagreed with the distinction between “impossible” and whatever degree of likelihood he would rather be described.

    That’s a whole lot of lyin.’ Reminds me of all those times Trump called Ted Cruz “Lyin’ Ted” without ever actually showing Cruz lied about anything. At least this time Trump is lying about democrats, right guys? Yay GOP!

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  386. 3. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think that the never Trumpers stoop at times to automatic criticism.

    Do you think Trump defenders ever stoop to automatic defense? Here we have Trump denying that a person existed, and even after audio of the briefing proves that utterly bizarre claim false, commenters are still saying “Trump was right” and that the guy “doesn’t exist.”

    Words mean things. “The source doesn’t exist” is different from “you misquoted the source.” Trump has a habit of exaggerating his claims because his defenders never worry about how he diverges from the truth, but instead twist reality and the language to prove him “right.” This is distressing because it is how citizens behave in totalitarian societies.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  387. To those who think Trump is playing 4D chess, I have never even remotely considered that, he’s just so shoot from the hip that sometimes he scores and the Never-Trumper response is to fire their own guns into their feet.

    Sometimes Trump doesn’t even need to do anything other than get elected:

    neon taster
    @neontaster
    All it took to expose horrible treatment of immigrants during the Obama administration was for Trump to become president.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  388. So saying the official told them it was impossible was not misquoting him, just an outright lie.

    Got it!

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  389. …and similar…So y’all are OK with the sin, it’s the act of common human decency that is the problem. Lawyers, no self-awareness. SMDH. OK, my bet is still open for takers and the house can go pound sand, wink-wink-nudge-nudge. Is that how y’all like it better? Dirty and under the table?

    Random word generator? Russian bot? Mental illness? The internet provides so many questions.

    2. I suspect the reason they did not want Pottinger named was they are managing a process of diplomacy where their words have impact on North Korea, China, South Korea, etc

    Yes, anonymous. Somehow this ‘impossible’ thing caused some unseen wrinkle, probably with China because ultimately this is between the USA and China and I don’t think Trump would be this rattled and desperate about the puppets. But all Trump had to do was tweet that the date is not absolutely impossible. He didn’t have to lie.

    I think it’s spectacular that after almost 400 comments neither you nor anyone else can name the person who The NY Times claimed told them it was impossible.

    You said this within four minutes of your demand I prove it was the man I named. And this is many hours after he was named.

    Please reference me a quote, I can wait.

    There is literally nothing I can say that will change your mind. You are too committed to carrying water for partisan purposes. Every single legitimate news organization on the planet has called Trump a liar. Every single one.

    Here’s a recording of Pottinger giving the damn briefing. Your claim is that this man does not exist at all, then that no one will ever prove he does exist. Listen to how vociferously Pottinger explains why the June 12 date is not going to happen. It takes “a few months” to prepare and June 12 is in “ten seconds”. It will take “an enormous amount of preparation.”

    Of course, now the goal posts shift. I provided actual proof and you will ignore this proof and move to pretending Pottinger didn’t make it clear enough that this meeting happening on June 12 is simply extremely unlikely.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  390. So saying the official told them it was impossible was not misquoting him, just an outright lie.

    Got it!

    harkin

    What’s really cute here is that you are badly mischaracterizing my words. None of Trump’s critics are saying “impossible” is an outright lie. I said it wasn’t a misquote because it wasn’t a quote, therefore it was a paraphrase and subjective. You summarize this by saying “outright lie!!!!”

    And look at your hypocrisy. You’re on this quest against dishonest paraphrases, and to win it you will dishonestly paraphrase everybody who stands in your way. I literally posted a video of the sooper secret briefing, and it’s an honest and reasonable summary that Pottinger did not believe the June 12 date was gonna happen. Quibbling over the word used to express it’s not going to happen is BS. But let’s just remember, Trump’s argument wasn’t about the word “impossible.” It was about whether a senior administration source offered this briefing. He lied.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  391. It was Lion Ted, thank you.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  392. Oh, my bad! I didn’t know I misquoted him. This explains why my hands keep phasing out of existence. I displeased The Leader and now my existence itself is on the line.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  393. 399 — another way to phrase the characterization of Trump’s tweet is that he denied there existed a “senior WH Official’ who said that the June 12 summit date was “impossible.”

    That’s what the NYT reported.

    Is it accurate?

    If not, then Trump’s denial that such person exists is accurate.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  394. I want to thank president trump for his service as commander in chief.

    memorialdays (798a10)

  395. If not, then Trump’s denial that such person exists is accurate.

    shipwreckedcrew

    The video makes it clear that Pottinger gave a briefing to the NYT where he made clear just how unlikely it was to keep the June 12 date, therefore Trump’s denial that this person exists is provably a lie. The idea that this phrasing wasn’t an intentional deception, because of Clintonian word games, is going to provide our country with a pretty sorry example for leadership and integrity.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  396. kathleen kennedy

    she’s really taken “obnoxious twat” to the next level huh

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  397. That’s my interpretation, Dustin, although I’m sure Trump didn’t mean it that way.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  398. But why worry about it? Why the big fight? At best, what Trump said is hilariously wrong. He’s been full of it since “lock her up.” Actually he’s been full of it since he said “I do.” Actually he’s been full of it since he said “I have a bone spur in that foot.”

    Who cares this much about defending Trump’s sacred honor? It’s hilarious.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  399. There is something peculiar about this photo of Pottinger at the White House press podium.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  400. the new york times lied and for what?

    and why did cnn jake tapper fake news compound the error instead of positioning themselves as having a modicum of integrity?

    this is going down on their permanent record

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  401. Skorcher, your comment was a springboard for something I thought people might be interested in. The law can draw a distinction between your and Beldar’s bets Based on our past interactions, I also thought you would understand my comment wasn’t a criticism of you. I still think you understand that but I’m sorry if you feel I was criticizing you.

    DRJ (15874d)

  402. An English teacher decides to ‘correct’ a form response letter from the Trump White House. It does not go well.

    https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/28/an-english-teachers-incorrect-correction/amp?__twitter_impression=true

    “Don’t get me wrong. The president is a huge doofus. But Mason’s markup of his letter does not reinforce that point. In fact, none of Mason’s corrections is correct, although there are at least two mistakes in the letter that she neglected to note. Mason’s showy but erroneous pedantry illustrates the tendency of Trump’s opponents to cast policy disagreements as questions of competence and to delight in everything that reflects badly on him, even when that thing is not, strictly speaking, true.”

    Some people will recognize the tactic.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  403. An apology has 3 things:
    1) an expression of regret
    2) personal responsibility
    3) a sincere desire to right the wrong

    Anything other than that is horseschiff.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  404. Oh, no. I didn’t feel any personal criticism. Mostly because I don’t have those kinds of feelz from people whom I don’t know. I’m just amused at the concern and how it’s played out. But if I can play this springboard game as well, why should any of this be of concern to the law? If two or even three people want to make a financial arrangement that does not affect anyone else, why does the law care? How is it anyone else’s business? If I want to bet Beldar that the Dow will cross 25,000 tomorrow and give 10% to P or even the Little Sisters of the Poor for services rendered, how is that the law’s business?

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  405. if i lied like Jake Tapper i’d hope somebody held me countable

    that’s how they raised me up to be countable

    to walk the righteous path

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  406. Real “players” call their brokers and have them place their “bet” on the Dow with the NYSE. Anonymous showoffs on the internet make fantasy bets to show off the cool casino lingo they learned by watching Pawn Stars.

    nk (dbc370)

  407. Skorcher,

    In case you are like Haiku and feel my apology was not satisfactory or sincere, I am sorry to involve you and I apologize. I won’t use your comments as a springboard for my thoughts again. It was interesting to me that the law makes that distinction, and I thought it might not be something well-known.

    DRJ (15874d)

  408. this picture is my new favorite thing

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  409. I knew they did that for concert tickets, but to get plots in a cemetery? That’s weird.

    nk (dbc370)

  410. DRJ,

    No need to apologize. The comment that others thought was unfair doesn’t exist.

    Patterico (ca6312)

  411. An apology has one thing: deny that you did the thing you are being asked to apologize for.

    Have we learned nothing??

    Patterico (ca6312)

  412. This is not legal advice. There are other rules but, in general, it is considered social betting so long as everyone is involved as players and no one else gets a cut, like a bookie or the host of the game.

    DRJ (15874d)

  413. Not all social betting is legal but betting with a bookie or House is illegal in many jurisdictions.

    DRJ (15874d)

  414. it’s everything

    the way they hold each other

    that magical umbrella

    the unaffectedness of it

    the sincerity

    the cooler (what’s in the cooler? i’m thinking some amazing pimento cheese and some pretzel rolls and some watermelon and some diet shasta)

    the certitude about how they’d not wanna be anywhere else today and how the neighbors know they’re gone today just like last year and the year before and they’re keeping an eye on the house

    it’s hotter than last year she says

    and he says a-yup wanna shasta?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  415. I think soylo, was Norwegian blue, even before they let opie take the helm,

    narciso (d1f714)

  416. the force is female Mr. narciso

    got big ole stormy titties that force does

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  417. I think soylo, was Norwegian blue, even before they let opie take the helm

    I understood that!!

    Patterico (ca6312)

  418. It’s resting, narciso. Beautiful plumage!

    Patterico (ca6312)

  419. 421… wow, not directed at you at all, DRJ. Just a reminder for all, including me.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  420. scary isn’t it, they are just killing the franchise, like han gutted the tauntaun, but at least that served a porpoise,

    narciso (d1f714)

  421. I didn’t, but I don’t care. I lost interest when my daughter lost interest and I didn’t have an excuse to buy lightsabers anymore.

    nk (dbc370)

  422. Have you learned nothing from the movies nk?

    You don’t buy lightsabers. You must make your own.

    NJRob (482a4e)

  423. scary isn’t it, they are just killing the franchise, like han gutted the tauntaun, but at least that served a porpoise,

    I understood that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  424. careful that lightsaber like to knick your titty

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  425. 438… lol…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  426. I liked the original Star Wars very much, it was almost a textbook on competent adventure/sci-if film timing.

    Empire was ok but the muppet kind of made it silly.

    The third one, which appeared to be a toy commercial was really boring.

    After that they just seemed so lame with no pace or compelling plot whatsoever.

    Some say the real genius was Lucas’s wife.

    There was a really good video review on YouTube explaining just how lame TPM was, find it and enjoy.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  427. why does dirty screw-anything-that-walks lando get his own movie and rose mcgowan can’t even get a starbucks gift card

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  428. the sad thing is the writer was Lawrence kasdan’s son, the former was who gave empire his gravitas,

    at the time, natalie portman had not become annoying, so I made allowance, but it’s a little like that cult film meteor, with sean connery and henry fonda, what was I thinking,

    narciso (d1f714)

  429. did we know Wim Wenders directed a movie about Pope Pooplick

    i guess this is peak pooplick

    ok glad we got that over with

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  430. still so mad at natalie for throwing annihilation under the metoo bus

    you can’t trust her she has her own agenda

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  431. she lost me with v for vendetta,

    narciso (d1f714)

  432. Report: Cindy McCain Likely to Succeed Husband John McCain in Senate

    she’s just sleazy and skanky enough to fit right in

    but is this good for America?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  433. Having read through this thread, I don’t see what the kerfuffle is all about.

    The Times published an article with a paraphrase of a quote from a briefing by an unnamed official, CNN reported on it, and Trump tweeted something stupid about it. Isn’t that just another day in the life?

    Regardless of what’s been reported on this proposed so-called summit, the real issue is whether it should be held in the first place, no matter when or where.

    North Korea is not to be trusted, and denuclearization means something different to us than it does to them. To the US, it means the permanent cessation of nuclear testing and the complete dismantling of NK nuclear weapons systems. To NK, it means the withdrawal of US forces from the DMZ and the removal of the nuclear umbrella protecting South Korea and Japan. Neither of which is likely to happen.

    Kim wants a meeting with Trump because he craves legitimacy as a dictator and an easing of economic and trade sanctions. Moon wants the meeting because he seeks an end to the threat of hostilities. Trump wants the meeting because he desperately needs some success at diplomacy, other than alienating allies. Lost in all this is, what does China want? What does Japan?

    Xi thinks of denuclearization the same way as Kim. So does Putin, and don’t think he’s not exerting his influence behind the scene. Abe thinks of denuclearization the same way as Trump. These are irreconcilable positions, which is why the Korean War has never ended.

    Does Moon really want reunification, really? The removal of the DMZ will be no different than the collapse of the Berlin Wall, when prosperous West Germany had to take on all the problems of destitute East Germany. Does prosperous South Korea want to take on all the problems of destitute North Korea? “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme,” Mark Twain allegedly once said. Having studied Twain, I find it more likely he would have said something more like “history doesn’t repeat itself, nor does it rhyme, except in discordance.”

    China knows that the only pathway for a land invasion is through Korea, which is why it has supported the communist north for decades. The last thing China wants is a reunified, capitalist Korea on its border. Not that Kim would ever give up his dictatorship as a favor to Moon, regardless of the economic benefits, anymore than he would ever give up his nuclear weapons. Xi is steadily exerting his influence not only over the South China Sea but over the Pacific Ocean as well.

    This is why Trump’s decision to remove the US from the TPP will prove disastrous. China is investing heavily in Brazil, while negotiating trade deals with multiple countries, including Australia, Canada and Mexico, even Japan, without any US influence. Trump is haphazardly imposing tariffs on major trading partners, the EU, Canada and Mexico. None of this will work out well.

    GawainsGhost (b25cd1)

  434. There has ever only been one good woman director, Elaine May, and she has made only one good movie, “A New Leaf”.

    nk (dbc370)

  435. Katherine bigelow, did a good job with zero dark 30, too good, the hurt locker could have lost a good hour without too much fuss,

    narciso (d1f714)

  436. But a crystal clear email: delete my one blog post criticizing Brett Kimberlin for ruining many lives with a bomb, provide access to my email account so that they could use it to dox other people and pursue lawfare. Or else

    Makes me wonder if anyone was dumb enough or cowardly enough to accept this deal.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  437. “The Times published an article saying an unnamed official used a word he did not say. CNN piled on with their house recipe Trump hate and Trump called them out.”

    Fyp

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  438. the trade policies of slutboy george and foodstamp weren’t exactly paying off in unicorns and rainbows

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  439. The Times published an article with a paraphrase of a quote from a briefing by an unnamed official, CNN reported on it, and Trump tweeted something stupid about it. Isn’t that just another day in the life?

    I don’t think that this is a fair description of Trump’s tweet. It was dumb but also a total denial of basic and undeniable reality.

    Patterico (0f8389)

  440. i like Mary Lambert’s Siesta with Ellen Barkin

    bravely done i think

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  441. If you think that what the Senate needs is more Senators like Susan Collins, than Cindy McCain is your gal.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  442. Not all social betting is legal but betting with a bookie or House is illegal in many jurisdictions.

    Yeah, I get that. I got that long ago. I grew up in south FL where in my youth there was a news story about a half dozen old men in Miami were busted for a private poker game. My question is why is it of anyone’s concern?

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  443. Patterico (ca6312) — 5/28/2018 @ 3:46 pm
    I understood that.
    DRJ (15874d) — 5/28/2018 @ 4:06 pm

    You have just had your Captain America moment.

    felipe (023cc9)

  444. And the count is now 48. That’s forty-eight Republican Congressman not seeking reelection. It must be the economy, they can now retire on their investments or find better-paying jobs.

    nk (dbc370)

  445. When was that in the 70s, I’ve mentioned the ‘hot suites’ where only certain figures were prosecuted and others were not.

    narciso (d1f714)

  446. My question is why is it of anyone’s concern?

    Skorcher (85dd74) — 5/28/2018 @ 5:03 pm

    I understand your question. Frankly, I don’t see any reason to share my answer.

    DRJ (15874d)

  447. R.I.P. Gardner Dozois, award-winning science fiction author, editor (1984-2004) of Asimov’s Science Fiction magazine, editor (1984-2018) of The Year’s Best Science Fiction anthology series. A tremendous loss for the world of sf in print.

    Icy (b9fc42)

  448. Yes, he was one of the greats. When science fiction was great, and weirdness was edited out and not a prerequisite.

    nk (dbc370)

  449. I understand your question. Frankly, I don’t see any reason to share my answer.

    Is something wrong? Are you OK? I hope I haven’t upset you.

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  450. Portman kind of killed the Episodes 1, 2 annd 3. I like my 1/2 Jewish women not too concerned with the world, like Carrie Fisher and Alison Brie.

    urbanleftbehind (32a4bf)

  451. Mollie
    @MZHemingway
    Replying to @FaceTheNation @MarkLandler and 2 others
    The problem is that the reporter didn’t — as he claims here — “basically” say the briefer said it was impossible. He TOTALLY said the briefer said it was impossible — in service of the story’s claim that Trump and his advisor were at odds. Yet when the briefer was asked

    point blank if it was impossible as time had run out, he pointedly declined to affirm that, instead saying: “the main point…is the ball is in North Korea’s court right now. And there’s really not a lot of time.” The problem is this reporter is bad at listening to his source

    NYT needed him to say it was impossible–something he pointedly declined to do when asked straight up, instead saying time was running out–in order to show him at odds with Trump. This shows how the tired anti-Trump frames that media forced people into are a disservice to truth

    — –

    suit of Happiness
    @LifeLibertyPlus
    Great review of what happened. Sad to see them twist the truth to create a story, get called out and still twist and turn it.

    Pretty much.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  452. No, you haven’t upset me at all but thank you for your concern. That is very thoughtful of you.

    DRJ (15874d)

  453. Ah mark ‘tiger beat’ landler he wrote an economium of Hillary even too embarrassing for procopius (kustiniams hagiographer who later went Michael wolff.

    narciso (d1f714)

  454. Don’t really see how anyone can blame Portman for bad writing and direction.

    She was put there as nerd eye candy which IIRC succeeded in spades.

    Not a real fan of hers but her SW films are not her fault. Everybody was wooden and uninteresting.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  455. True even ewan McGregor phoned it in, her sunsequent work is what I have issue with, although Thor seems to suggest her range is limited.

    narciso (d1f714)

  456. Of course if you want to see wooden characterization, 1990’s captain America with Matt Salinger, the girl from hotshot, Ronnie Cox and Scott paulin as the red skull.

    narciso (d1f714)

  457. I don’t think that this is a fair description of Trump’s tweet. It was dumb but also a total denial of basic and undeniable reality.

    Patterico (0f8389) — 5/28/2018 @ 4:46 pm

    Or you could admit the undeniable reality that the NYT printed that an official “said” something that no official said.

    That is a fair description of what they did, and Trump critics don’t want to admit it.

    You’re in bed with the media deniers on this one.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  458. And lets ignore the DAvid hasselhof Nick fury vehicle, by thors hammer that was bad.

    narciso (d1f714)

  459. Matt Salinger was the beta test of Armie Hammer.

    urbanleftbehind (32a4bf)

  460. I saw it on Spanish, not the davis hasselhof one, that’s one in the vault with the arc of the covenant.

    narciso (d1f714)

  461. Warriors $uck tonight.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  462. Is it a waste of time to try to talk to North Korea?

    DRJ (15874d)

  463. “BYRON YORK: “The Mueller probe: Let’s squeeze this guy (maybe the Taxi King!), who might squeeze that guy, who might reveal some unspecified, yet-to-be-exposed wrongdoing by Trump.”

    This is how you proceed when you’ve got nothing.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/298016/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  464. Not all social betting is legal but betting with a bookie or House is illegal in many jurisdictions.

    DRJ (15874d) — 5/28/2018 @ 3:39 pm

    In other words, Patterico operating as Beldar’s bagman is legit.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  465. Scrolling back, harkin uses the least amount of words to explain what should be obvious. swc uses the second least.

    The Trump haters have to write novels to explain why Trump’s “technical” win is the exact opposite of how they would use a technicality to win in court.

    Trump, my friends, is living rent free in your lousy hypocritical long-winded attempts at an argument.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  466. Cgi couldn’t account for this:

    https://youtu.be/Km09WyWT84c

    narciso (d1f714)

  467. Trump was not “wiretapped and there was a WH “official.” Those facts pale in significance to me when it comes to the realities and context surrounding them.

    DJT’s campaign was targeted by spies of the IC community of the USA based on spurious “evidence” per Admiral Rogers and summit preparation talks with the DPRK were ongoing at the time the NYT decided of their own accord they were “impossible.”

    Forget DJT. A POTUS is due reasonable latitude when he makes protests of a nature as serious as these two examples. He was not boasting nor taking credit for things he did not do. The ramifications of these incidents are enormous. DJT got the big pieces right each time.

    I still want to know how much ransom was paid or promised for the folks recently released.

    Ed from SFV (b95465)

  468. I bet (!) you are speaking hypothetically. He’s only a bagman if it is an illicit or illegal plan, and it probably isn’t since he does not take a cut under Beldar’s plan.

    DRJ (15874d)

  469. @ swc (#473): You’re going ad hominem. So much for turning over a new leaf.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  470. Brevity is the soul of wit and, apparently, the mark of a “winning” argument. No doubt Trump would approve, in 280 characters or less.

    DRJ (15874d)

  471. President Trump’s the best brevity person. My favorite brevity he does is when he does the tweets about how the New York Times lies all the time.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  472. I couldn’t find an English copy of the latter film, be thankful.

    So, do we want to go to war with the Kim dynast or not, let’s make it binary?

    narciso (d1f714)

  473. Which side have you come down on? How is that ad hominen? Are you and Patrick somewhere else on the question, or right there with Maggie Halberman who tweeted:

    Imagine being the WH background briefer who led this briefing, who now has his boss – the president of the US – saying he/she doesn’t exist.

    You’ve both eaten their spin on what Trump’s tweet meant.

    And, as I pointed out a couple times, I have never read the entire NYT story because its behind their paywall.

    BUT I surmised they wrote that an official “said” the June 12 meeting was “impossible” because they were trying to highlight the Trump v. Staff issue, that their input doesn’t phase him, and/or that he’s got no idea what’s involved.

    AND LO AND BEHOLD, Molly Hemmingway fills in the part I wasn’t able to read — but I guessed EXACTLY right. According to her column, here’s a more complete version of what the NYT Reporters wrote:

    As with so many issues involving this president, the views of his aides often have little effect on what he actually says. On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.

    On Friday, Mr. Trump said, ‘It could even be the 12th.’

    Viola — its really a story that fits into the NYT long-running narrative that Trump goes on about his day oblivious to the reality of the job and the world.

    “Write to the narrative boys and girls, don’t let accuracy be a bugaboo.”

    On this point, neither you nor Patrick has taken even a MOMENT to engage.

    The NYT editorial decision about the language to use to describe the upshot of the briefing — and to not use an actual verbatim quote which they had available — was dictated by the overarching narrative they have been driving for going on 18 months.

    You agree with the narrative — fine. Do you accept the mischaracterization? The media has been defending it for 48 hours.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  474. It’s.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  475. They have for all intents and purposes made a choice to play for the Democrats.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  476. looks like Mr. shipwreck won the whole argument

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  477. Make that for all in tents and porpoises…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  478. Just cause BuDuh says so, don’t make it so. My comment was shorter than Trump’s ahem fingers.

    Nope. It’s spin machine versus spin machine. There was an anonymous source which was misquoted. That’s why I said this is a sick relationship between John Barron and the media. Like Al and Peggy Bundy. A constant competition of who can make the other look worse while still feeding and propping up each other.

    nk (dbc370) — 5/27/2018 @ 5:10 pm

    nk (dbc370)

  479. Didn’t fly teh second time either.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  480. Mark Slutford is having trouble in virginia

    Sanford, who ran to CNN to refuse to endorse President Trump’s re-election in April alongside the staunch Never Trumper, retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and others, is by all accounts struggling heading into the primary just over a couple weeks from now.

    ikes!

    he has NO private sector skills so boyfriend really needs to turn this around

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  481. ugh why did i say virginia i have no idea

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  482. In point of fact the narrative, has lottle to do with reality, however those who deal witb the gorilla channel will be confused .I wonder who came up with it, Sherman rhodes (He had no particular involvement, but he didn’t have a farthing of understanding about Cuba wither

    narciso (d1f714)

  483. Its up the appalachian trail, i think.

    narciso (d1f714)

  484. i just realized i missed this with my spring being so chaotic

    i’m kinda obsessed with this place but logistically it’s hard to catch a reservation and have some special enough to take at the same time

    i need to meet more specialer people

    normal people are fine don’t get me wrong but the special ones are better cause you can go eat wes anderson

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  485. have some*one* special enough to take i mean

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  486. oh i think i see

    slutford’s opponent is named Arrington and I read Arlington

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  487. Wow… Houston has missed 24 3-pointers in a row…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  488. looks like Mr. shipwreck won the whole argument

    Yep.

    BuDuh (fb7a97)

  489. And teh Warriors have stopped $ucking!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  490. You could have taken 1st place, nk!

    There was an anonymous source which was misquoted

    Exactly right.

    BuDuh (fb7a97)

  491. He’s only a bagman if it is an illicit or illegal plan, and it probably isn’t since he does not take a cut under Beldar’s plan.

    Sooooo, you are saying I should be bullied into accepting that “probably” means the same thing as “impossible?”

    BuDuh (fb7a97)

  492. Beating, morale, yada.

    narciso (d1f714)

  493. ugh another bogus trash-veteran trying to cash in on his military service

    this one kinda reminds me of tammy duckfart

    he calls himself “Pat Ryan” cause he’s trying to invoke Clancy i think

    seriously if we really looked at this objectively I think we’d find that a good rule of thumb is to just not elect people who served in the military

    for every one Tom Cotton it seems there’s a good dozen of these losers

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  494. I guess I shouldn’t have posted that bit from Byron York earlier. I forgot that he’s not thought to be as honest as Stelter, Haberman, etc., around here.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  495. “The line to me is, the weapons I carried in combat for 27 months should not be on our streets.”

    maybe you’d like them up your ass then

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  496. I’m not bullying you but I have to say probably. There is little certainty in law and no certainty in hypothetical law.

    DRJ (15874d)

  497. I’m reading some short stories by Jack Ritchie (he was the guy who wrote the story for “A New Leaf”, the Elaine May movie), and he knew his Illinois law. Before truth in sentencing, someone sentenced to natural life would be eligible for parole in twelve years and eight months (twenty years minus good time). Judges would get around it by imposing sentences of 99 years.

    nk (dbc370)

  498. Well he does remind me of the one from ahia who later dabbled in Josh ‘porn hub’ marshals playpen, but as you well know they banned guns in 1982, and everything has turned out hunky sory since in the windy coty.

    narciso (d1f714)

  499. did you see that article last week exhorting Chicagoans to give blood before the long weekend

    we were running low and things were already getting super-shooty

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  500. we never have enough platelets here they said

    we need all the platelets

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  501. Carp, it might be necessary to call in the guard, but that might work out as well northern Ireland in 72

    narciso (d1f714)

  502. it’s only certain neighborhoods not a big deal

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  503. Another good synthesis by themarketswork blog. Key issue were the extensive searches on private data hoovered up by NSA and then used by many agencies and even contractors. This isn’t just a Trump thing. But a habitual perversion of the 4th Amendment.

    https://themarketswork.com/2018/05/28/bypassing-the-inspector-general-sally-yates-and-the-dojs-national-security-letter-carve-out/

    Anonymous (1aa96e)

  504. @ swc, who asked (#489):

    Which side have you come down on? How is that ad hominen? Are you and Patrick somewhere else on the question, or right there with Maggie Halberman who tweeted:

    I assume you know what “ad hominem” means. Your comment (#473) was:

    You’re in bed with the media deniers on this one.

    The subject of this sentence is Patterico. The term “in bed” implies affinity. This is effectively an accusation that Patterico is a media denier. That is an ad hominem comment, directed not to an argument but to a speaker, about the speaker, and it’s intended to be — and it is — offensive and insulting.

    None of what I’ve just written is remotely disputable. The only question is: Did you intend the insult, or are you oblivious to it?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  505. what’s a media denier

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  506. Sooooo, you are saying I should be bullied into accepting that “probably” means the same thing as “impossible?”

    BuDuh (fb7a97) — 5/28/2018 @ 8:10 pm

    On second thought, I have no idea what this means.

    DRJ (15874d)

  507. Trump is a media denier. He denies them the respect they crave.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  508. i stand with President Trump on this Mr. Mous

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  509. My favorite is when Trump calls Acosta #fakenews to his face while giving the question to someone else. Sadly, I don’t think he’s done this lately.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  510. Beldar, you might as well stop. Buduh (cruz supporter?) and happyfeet have announced that SWC won this debate. Trump was not lying to deny the existence of the man recorded saying it was extremely unlikely a June 12 meeting could still take place, due to the “enormous” effort and “months” of planning it would take for a meeting in “ten seconds.”

    It doesn’t matter that I literally posted the recording and not only does the NYT, CNN, AP and other accounts of this meeting seem quite fair, but the man does exist after all, and therefore Trump was doing what he does a lot: lying about something stupid.

    Since SWC won the debate, and there is only one other thing for partisans to do, it’s time for some personal attacks.

    I just can’t stop this thread. It’s the most easily proven lie in political history, and there is no purpose behind defending Trump because it only keeps this story alive to do so, but apparently Trump’s loyal defenders just gotta do it.

    He denies them the respect they crave.

    Anon Y. Mous

    On the contrary. Trump just made the NYT a million dollars. He just gave them world-wide recognition. He handed them a simple, easy to understand presidential scandal, on a silver platter (I guess it makes more sense to go with gold platter this time). The guys at the NYT are as delighted with Trump as Matt Drudge was with Monica Lewinski. Trump is definitely boosting the credibility of his critics, and it is a clumsy needless fight. All he had to do was say the June 12 date is going to happen. Albeit it isn’t because it’s apparently impossible (see the recording of the briefing I posted for a good explanation from the Trump administration for why this is the case).

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  511. presidential scandal

    *snicker*

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  512. I just want you to take a step back, swc:

    You’re accusing our host of being “in bed with the media deniers” over the difference between, on the one hand, an assertion that the June 12th date is impossible (the NYT’s wording) and, on the other hand (your wording, #286), “The June 12 date might very well be impossible.”

    Based on that sliver of a distinction that the NYT failed to make, you’re now sorting people into the camps of friends and enemies. Patterico and Maggie Halberman are now, metaphorically, lovers having sex, in order to screw the Donald, if I follow your train of logic.

    Haiku tried to pull this same BS a few days ago, when he insisted that Patterico was the tool of the left-wing media or some such nonsense. Do you intend to join him in that crusade?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  513. That’s serious category error, the scandal is through from Clinton through Obama, they were able to build up a nuclear program

    narciso (d1f714)

  514. Mr. shipwreck only won cause he had the best arguments though Mr. Dustin.

    The New York Times lied about what they heard at the background briefing, and President Trump busted them on it.

    This made then feel angry and frustrated and what did they do?

    They lashed out.

    And the CNN Jake Tapper fake news lashed out too.

    Before you could stop it the media had rubbed feces all over their naked bodies and ran into traffic.

    Even Heidi Cruz never did that.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  515. I think the federalist augmented by power line, has put forth an alternate interpretation, which is more plausible than the prevailing narrative carry on.

    narciso (d1f714)

  516. 528.

    Shippie has worked through the logic well. I don’t agree with your arguments, but at least you attempt to make some. Patterico on the other hand sticks to argument by bald assertion, one liners.

    Oh…and now we get the boo hoo hoo, poor host being abused. Was this place like this 10 years ago? [I guess, I could check that.]

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  517. Mollie Hemingway’s a treasure, a truly American soul

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  518. Anonymous and hatefulfeet are standing shoulder to shoulder with you on your crusade, swc.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  519. Are y’all in bed together?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  520. *snicker*

    Anon Y. Mous

    Oh, I know it’s stupid. I’ve pointed out how silly this is many times in this thread. But yeah, when the president lies to the American people, it’s definitely scandalous and though presidential is not a word I would normally use to describe Trump, he did somehow become president.

    What’s really interesting is that this is just kinda what Trump’s supporters have accepted as the status quo. Yeah he lied again, so what? How is that even news?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  521. (See how this works? Ad hominem — not about the argument or the idea or the public figure under discussion, but about the speaker, personally. Pretty soon you start telling people what they should be ashamed of.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  522. It seems they don’t learn the lesson:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/28/italy-eurosceptic-far-right-technocrat-matarella-racist-populist

    Yes were still over macho grande how does Chris coons sound after 8 years

    narciso (d1f714)

  523. i’m not in bed yet cause ikes look at the time i need to take my pills i guess but i have an episode of expanse to watch

    my expanse friends are in kind of a pickle with the protos and all the molecular but i’m hoping it’s gonna end up like in the book

    fingers crossed!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  524. My ethnographic study of MAY08 Pontifications is incomplete, but I quickly found a math error that was not commented on:

    comment 24 of http://patterico.com/2008/05/30/read-this-post-even-if-you-have-been-confused-by-or-put-off-by-the-posts-on-dna-statistics-and-cold-cases/

    1/(2^500) =/= 1/3200. It is more like ~1/(3.3×10^150)

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  525. I think they made some changes, there are too many characterdand plots to accommodate in one season, it is a little like game of thrones in space, and bears some resemblance to the red rising series.

    When I first read Collins and lapierre, I realized it was only matter of when not if Libya would have a nuclear weapon.

    narciso (d1f714)

  526. amazon recommendered red rising to me this week

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  527. Oh, I know it’s stupid. I’ve pointed out how silly this is many times in this thread. But yeah, when the president lies to the American people, it’s definitely scandalous and though presidential is not a word I would normally use to describe Trump, he did somehow become president.

    Heh. Yes, it is silly that you and your cohorts continue to claim Trump lied. He did not. He called out the NYT for lying by saying that there was no such person who told them that the meeting was impossible. You claim that because he did not mock them in the correct way, he was lying. Everyone knew what he meant. There was no deception or intent to deceive.

    You cannot have a lie without an intent to deceive.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  528. Happy Memorial Day, Steve 57.

    mg (9e54f8)

  529. When everyone is talking about something, like chattering flying monkey avenatti, in the same tone of voice, its not a scandal, when you can’t talk about it, it is:
    https://www.steynonline.com/8675/tommy-this-an-tommy-that-an-tommy-go-away

    narciso (d1f714)

  530. Btw abbas is out of the hospital, even if they have to give him the John gill treatment.

    narciso (d1f714)

  531. Interesting discussion of how Halper may have worked his way towards meeting with Papadopolis.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-campaign-vet-informant-used-me-to-get-to-papadopoulos?platform=hootsuite

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  532. Rudy Giuliani booed at Yankee Stadium when announcer wishes him happy birthday. Don’t fret, Rudy, they booed Justin Verlander too, not despite, but because of, the fact that he pitched 6-2/3 innings, with five hits, five strikeouts, no walks, and one run, in route to a dominating 5-1 Astros win at Yankee Stadium.

    Verlander was magnificent again, as the Yankee boos effectively acknowledged. He tipped his cap to the fans as they booed him, after which he and Kate Upton drank champagne distilled from Yankee tears.

    I doubt Rudy can do as well.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  533. So you’re saying its a sign your doing something right?

    narciso (d1f714)

  534. “On the path to the June 12 summit with North Korea, journalists claimed President Donald Trump would not be willing to walk away from the negotiating table because he was too desperate for a win.

    The Washington Post’s David Nakamura wrote that “critics fear that a president determined to declare victory where his predecessors failed will allow his desire for a legacy-making deal to override the substance of the negotiations.” On the same day, the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman mocked Trump’s desire for a win, which he said was turning Trump into a fool who was getting played.

    Then President Trump did what media outlets said he’d never do. He walked away from the negotiating table due to North Korea’s behavior. The media outlets didn’t acknowledge their previous analytical missteps so much as come up with new lines of attack on Trump.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-new-york-times-gets-busted-peddling-fake-news/#.Wwwfs9eTLhO.twitter

    “Mark Landler and David Sanger of The New York Times wrote an article arguing there were deep divisions between Trump and his advisors. To support the claim, the Times argued that Trump said a June 12 summit was still possible, while his top aides said it was “impossible”:

    As with so many issues involving this president, the views of his aides often have little effect on what he actually says. On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.

    On Friday, Mr. Trump said, ‘It could even be the 12th.’”

    ———–

    Last time I checked “could even be the 12th” is not at all a statement of likelihood, but one of a chance, likely slim. Else it would be “likely the 12th”. Not “could even be”. The logical contrast to unlikely but possible is impossible. The word that NYT used. And now that we have the transcript a mischaracterization of the briefing (which said it would be difficult, i.e. unlikely…but NOT impossible.)

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  535. Who knows if Trump gets anything useful done with NK. It is obviously a situation where we do not have control. But I do think his zeroing in on China is non-stupid. Something that has been discussed over the years by others. See also this thread:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/28/that-time-when-donald-trump-revealed-his-super-secret-plan-to-deal-with-north-korea/ (I know, I know, Treepers)

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  536. ^ bwahahahahahaha

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  537. (I was referring of course to the 11:26 pm comment). Hahahahahahahahaha

    The logical contrast to unlikely but possible is impossible.

    OK buddy.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  538. Looks like Dustin and Beldar won the argument.

    Patterico (908489)

  539. 555. Nope.

    See..even shorter bald assertion. Beldar, of the “I’m doing an ad hom to show you it, not because I actually get off on it” would be so proud of me! 😉

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  540. That tweet is me telling Byron York, who touted Mollie Hemingway’s double talk about all this, the following: “An inaccurate paraphrase of a real source is worlds away from making up the source out of whole cloth, and Mollie and you both know this.”

    If conservatives wanted to make a hullabaloo over a news organization saying an official said something was impossible when all that happened was that he all but said it was impossible, and strongly implied it was impossible, they would have an easier time doing that Very Important Work if the President of the United States stopped getting in their way by making utterly indefensible pronouncements that even the most hardcore partisans have to twist themselves into logical pretzels to defend.

    If this had been my heyday of LAT criticism and this had been the LAT, I still would have taken a pass on this hairsplitting media criticism. But making a mountain out of this molehill while the leader of the free world floats a batshit crazy conspiracy theory really takes the cake.

    Dustin has absolutely destroyed anyone who tried to take issue with him in this thread. TKO after TKO.

    Patterico (908489)

  541. Anonymous, I don’t have to respond to any contrary points in this thread because they don’t exist.

    Patterico (908489)

  542. Also because Dustin did it so I don’t have to. He has more patience for tomfoolery than I do.

    Patterico (908489)

  543. 556.

    Trump was imprecise. He should have said the briefer did not say Y, versus saying “there was no briefer who said Y.” Even if literally correct, it is not the right way to think about the nature of the NYT dishonest reporting.

    To throw you an additional bone: you should gig the President for the comment about why not use real names, when it was administration that said briefing would not name the briefer!

    But you seem much more jazzed about going after Trump than the NYT dishonesty (and these are guys communicating in long form, with lots of time to get into the weeds).

    And the “aha” “tada” of that their was a briefer is overplaying it. You’re out over your skies. Add that to the target-rent list. 😉

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  544. Impossible =/= difficult =/= could even.

    0% =/= >50%.

    Do you capisce?

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  545. “An inaccurate paraphrase of a real source is worlds away from making up the source out of whole cloth, and Mollie and you both know this.”

    I agree with you. I might not think it is quite the tada event of “worlds”. But yeah, sure. The briefing was mischaracterized by NYT. Not that it didn’t happen.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  546. The NYT was imprecise. They should have said the official all but said it was impossible, or that he very strongly implied it was impossible, instead of saying he said it was impossible.

    But you seem much more jazzed about going after this hairsplitting distinction than joining me in mocking the President of the United States for making crazy shit up.

    Patterico (908489)

  547. “Absurd lies” (from Twitter) is out over the skis too. The point has already been made that imprecision is not the same as deception. This is a fundamental concept…prosecutor.

    If Trump was trying to actively deceive (vice talking out of his a..) he wouldn’t have made the comment about use real names (when administration had set up briefing to be unnamed). The clear inference instead was that DJT was not in the weeds of the briefing and how it was set up.

    By the way, you say you don’t need to respond to any counters but the issue of intent in a lie has been raised. That is one you could/should respond to.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  548. The briefing was mischaracterized by NYT. Not that it didn’t happen.

    Yet that is what Trump claimed to his rubes. It wasn’t enough to say: hey, NYT, you very slightly overstated the official’s point. Instead he just accuses them of making up the guy out of whole cloth. This is insane. Yet hundreds of comments later people still defend him, even when the guy’s existence is proven beyond all doubt.

    As I predicted people would do.

    Patterico (908489)

  549. “Absurd lies” (from Twitter) is out over the skis too. The point has already been made that imprecision is not the same as deception. This is a fundamental concept…prosecutor.

    I am done responding to you this thread…anonymous person who makes pointed and unnecessary reference to my job.

    Which, again, your comments don’t even exist anyway, so there is literally nothing to respond to.

    Patterico (908489)

  550. 564. I think almost impossible would have been fine and not that inconsistent with Trump’s earlier “could even be” (statement of an unlikely chance). [But thus ruining some of the narrative of the story.]

    If you want to make the point that Trump was not following the minutia of the briefing, you have strong support for that. Of course we learned that after the NYT story, not before it. The fundamental NYT narrative of some huge embarrassing gap was not really there. “Could even be” is clearly less than 50% and is coming from a previous Bayesian prior of not happening at all. Maybe a fair summary would be:

    “Trump tweeted that meeting might happen based on NK comments, perhaps even on original date. A follow-up briefing stated that 12JUN would be difficult to make because of pre meeting coordination. Also that the ball remained in NK court.”

    P.s. I know you think I am trying to play word games but I’m not. [You can even see how I’ve ceded subpoints, not the behavior of a sophist.] This is just how I see it. Might be wrong. But am not dishonest.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  551. I like not existing! 😉

    I did tweak you with the job comment. Usually don’t but I slipped into a venal sin [I would blame it on Beldar rubbing off on me, but this is actually GOOD behavior coming from my normal level of trolling.] It’s irrelevant to argument. Also, it’s not like you try to lord over us…never heard you say “trust me, IAL or IAP”. You act like a civilian.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  552. Beautiful article exploring some of the mysteries around NK royal family:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/king_of_pyongyang

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  553. General rule of thumb (we can still have these, right?) Ad hominem == uncle…with 99.7% confidence

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  554. Three sigma? Seems too high confidence. 😉 How about Pareto 80-20?

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  555. Yeah. I had 90% at first. But no. I could not think of a single time that I saw anyone with whom I agreed on the subject being argued use the ad hominem line. Except in retaliation. Thus the .7…Also, If I’m going with stats made up in my head, why be so wimpy?

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  556. “The NYT was imprecise…”

    *****Understatement of Teh Year!!!*****

    You. Can’t. Make. This. Up.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  557. 573: Cpk baby! You got that process dialed in. Here’s the Green Belt and a $5,000 per year raise.

    Anonymous (1aa96e)

  558. Thanks, but I just got a 10K raise because our HR guy finds it too hard to divide by 24. Another 5K would really screw things up again.

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  559. No, the new York times lied as in with the call transcript re Sanford, as NBC did with the audio as abc did wee the video, as wash and repeat, with ferguson and Baltimore, which encourages capernicks tantrum and the fusilade of dead cops for the last year and a half. But Kevin williamson finds hank Williams Jr. Distasteful.

    narciso (d1f714)

  560. As they obfuscated Boston and San Bernardino and bureau informant kin in Orlando, as they hide the real reason of the electricity crisis in puerto Rico.

    narciso (d1f714)

  561. “So much for those who dismissed charges of Obama administration infiltration of Donald Trump’s campaign as paranoid fantasy. Defenders of the Obama intelligence and law enforcement apparat have had to fall back on the argument that this infiltration was for Trump’s — and the nation’s — own good.

    It’s an argument that evidently didn’t occur to Richard Nixon’s defenders when it became clear that Nixon operatives had burglarized and wiretapped the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in June 1972.

    Until 2016, just about everyone agreed that it was a bad thing for government intelligence or law enforcement agencies to spy — er, use informants — on a political campaign, especially one of the opposition party. Liberals were especially suspicious of the FBI and the CIA. Nowadays they say that anyone questioning their good faith is unpatriotic.

    The crime at the root of Watergate was an attempt at surveillance of the DNC after George McGovern seemed about to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, just as the government misconduct in Russiagate was an attempt at surveillance of the Republican Party’s national campaign after Trump clinched its nomination.

    In both cases, the incumbent administration regarded the opposition’s unorthodox nominee as undermining the nation’s long-standing foreign policy and therefore dangerous to the country. McGovern renounced the Democrats’ traditional Cold War policy. Trump expressed skepticism about George W. Bush and Obama administration policies on NATO, Mexico, Iran and (forgetting Barack Obama’s ridicule of Mitt Romney on the subject) Russia.”

    https://nypost.com/2018/05/27/obamas-spying-scandal-is-starting-to-look-a-lot-like-watergate/

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  562. Speaking truth to power isn’t easy, even with terrible teresa in power:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/16/sarah-champion-quits-jeremy-corbyns-shadow-cabinet-warning-pakistani/

    narciso (d1f714)

  563. The punchline to that joke, coronello, who delivered mist everything Mcgovern promised, he purged 800 operatives out of the CIA, betrayed two allies, who were considered to authoritarian, one in each hemisphere, given time he would have turned over the phillipines to the npa

    narciso (d1f714)

  564. WASHINGTON – U.S. President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed Monday that it is “imperative” to completely dismantle North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program, the White House said.

    The leaders agreed that they will meet ahead of a much anticipated summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, back on schedule for June 12 in Singapore just days after Trump announced he was canceling it.

    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/29/national/politics-diplomacy/trump-abe-say-imperative-dismantle-north-koreas-nukes-plan-meet-kim-summit/#.Ww1Z1-6FNUQ

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  565. I guess I need to note what I was referring to with the term “media deniers” — a brief search indicated that I’ve never used that description here before. Its something that came up on another site, and in email correspondence with a couple other people during my “vacay”.

    It wasn’t my term — it was coined by someone else to me as a descriptor of a point I was making — and it relates to those who would “deny” the existence of ulterior motives on the part of the national press corps — most specifically the NYT — to slant and shade every article about Trump in a way that fits into one of several ongoing narratives, all of which are unflattering to Trump in different ways. This one specifically deals with his disconnect from staff advice, his inability to understand the work taking place around him, and his failure to be part of the planning process for something significant like a Nork Summit, preferring to simply “wing it” — with the implication that he’s not capable of doing anything more thoughtful and planned.

    These are all viewpoints about Trump that are accepted and favored by many in the anti-Trump and NeverTrump crowd — and I don’t fault people for coming to those views when earnestly held.

    But I find fault in a press corps that drives those narratives every day in their straight reporting — like the NYT did in this article, which turned out to be less about the status of summit preparations (i.e., the reason for the briefing) than it did about creating a conflict between Trump and a member of his staff out of whole-cloth.

    And a “media denier” is someone who refuses to acknowledge these transparent intentions in the reporting and editing decisions of outlets like the NYT.

    There are many in the anti-Trump and NeverTrump crowd who “deny” such a campaign exists, and they see stories like the one involving the WH official as simply an over-reaction to a press story with an inaccurate paraphrase of something attributed to an administration official.

    Reactions such as this:

    That tweet is me telling Byron York, who touted Mollie Hemingway’s double talk about all this, the following: “An inaccurate paraphrase of a real source is worlds away from making up the source out of whole cloth, and Mollie and you both know this.”

    I disagree this was simply a matter of an “inaccurate paraphrase” — first of all, that’s an oxymoron.

    The NYT chose to not quote the official. The briefing was on the record, and the briefer game them a nice little “sound bite” with the “June 12 is like in 10 minutes.” But rather than quote him, the reporter wrote, and the editor approved, a sentence claiming that a WH official “said” the June 12 date was “impossible.”

    But I predicted without ever having read the actual NYT story that the reason they didn’t quote the official was because a quote wouldn’t have set up the “Trump doesn’t pay attention to his staff’s advice” payoff, which was the the central point of the article — and I was correct.

    As I said at the VERY START in my description of what I called a “kerfluffle” — meaning that I see it as an overblown nothing-burger of no significance — its significance is only in that its another example of the narrative-driven NYT reporting. Beyond that, its nothing more than exercise in silly semantic word games both by POTUS and the press in response to his tweet.

    Sort of like the media twisting itself into a pretzel to defend former Obama Admin officials when they claimed they only sent an “informant” in to infiltrate the Trump campaign staff, not a “spy” — and even it was a spy, that was a good thing because the Trump campaign needed to be protected from the Russians.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  566. And I’ll note again, not a single person on the opposite side of this debate has yet taken on this point.

    The accuracy/inaccuracy of the NYT reference to the official’s comment, and the accuracy/inaccuracy of Trump’s tweet in response, are meaningless as a substantive matter.

    Who wants to challenge the view that the NYT’s use of the too definitive term “impossible” to mischaracterize what the official said was not an accident?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  567. As a member of the Obama administration had opined during the 2016 campaign, “it’s not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.”

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  568. 270.

    [DRJ:] I think Trump intentionally is careless with his words in order to create controversy and deniability.

    Do you think this happens at the NYT as well?

    BuDuh (fc15db) — 5/28/2018 @ 8:38 am

    ****

    273.

    Do you think this happens at the NYT as well?

    BuDuh (fc15db) — 5/28/2018 @ 8:38 am

    Absolutely.

    DRJ (15874d) — 5/28/2018 @ 8:49 am

    DRJ (15874d)

  569. That would be plotted the one that received 500 k to lobby for the south African firm in partnership with zte.

    narciso (d1f714)

  570. That doesn’t answer swc’s specific question, DRJ.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  571. And I’ll note again, not a single person on the opposite side of this debate has yet taken on this point.

    The accuracy/inaccuracy of the NYT reference to the official’s comment, and the accuracy/inaccuracy of Trump’s tweet in response, are meaningless as a substantive matter.

    Who wants to challenge the view that the NYT’s use of the too definitive term “impossible” to mischaracterize what the official said was not an accident?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/29/2018 @ 8:07 am

    I think the NY Times was inaccurate and tries to hurt Trump. I also think Trump was inaccurate and deliberately tries to confuse. Both are important to society and both are disappointing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  572. I was in the process of answering but it’s good to know you have swc’s back.

    DRJ (15874d)

  573. But I had taken on the point, as evidenced by comments 270 and 273. That is why I reprinted them. I t was a long time ago and easy to miss, so I’m not surprised swc didn’t see them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  574. 590 —

    I think the NY Times was inaccurate and tries to hurt Trump. I also think Trump was inaccurate and deliberately tries to confuse. Both are important to society and both are disappointing.

    I agree 100%. We could drink a toast to that one.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  575. “The NYT was imprecise. They should have said the official all but said it was impossible, or that he very strongly implied it was impossible, instead of saying he said it was impossible.

    Or, they could have just reported what he said instead of trying to create a situation that did not, you know, exist.

    Be that as it may, that only took a bit over 500 comments for you to partially own up.

    Now just admit that the official who said it was impossible does not exist and you’ve taken the first two steps in combatting TDS.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  576. swc’s question was only moments ago, DRJ, and you still haven’t answered it specifically. Unless you are treating “mischaracterize” as synonymous with “inaccurate.”

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  577. Eh… what to I know? LOL. Not a very good job of having his back. Sorry, DRJ.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  578. The best write up on this that I’ve seen so far:

    Media Double Down After New York Times Gets Busted Peddling Fake News

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-new-york-times-gets-busted-peddling-fake-news/

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  579. You have his back and I have Patterico’s. We both support good people.

    DRJ (15874d)

  580. Did I answer your question adequately, swc, about why your #473 was ad hominem?

    You effectively repeated the ad hominem, without the “in bed” reference, in #584. I do not agree with you that our host is someone who denies that most national media organizations are biased against Trump; I could start linking posts in which he’s expressed exactly the opposite opinion, but I’d quickly outrun the three-links-per-comment spam filter trigger. I do not agree with you that our host either is someone, or is “in bed with” someone, who “refuses to acknowledge these transparent intentions in the reporting and editing decisions of outlets like the NYT.”

    I challenged Haiku to point us to one major correction that he’s induced a major news outlet like the NYT or the LAT or a broadcast or cable TV network to make. Our host stopped counting when he got to 40. I have only a small handful in comparison, as when, for example, during the 2004 campaign I made the NYT retract its claim that when he visited Paris to meet with attendees at the Paris Peace Conference in 1970, John Kerry met with “both sides.” (He met with both enemies, i.e., the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong delegations, not with American or South Vietnamese representatives.) But I would certainly take offense if you accused me of being, or being in bed with, “media deniers.” And I take offense on our host’s behalf: He’s done more to combat media bias, with more results to point to, than anyone who comes to mind.

    So I think your ad hominem argument is ridiculous, meaning the argument deserves ridicule. Regardless of whether it’s right or wrong, though, it’s very definitely ad hominem.

    I am almost certain, if based on nothing more than your years of service in a responsible legal job, that know you know that lawyers who focus their arguments in court upon the other lawyer, rather than the other lawyer’s arguments, almost inevitably annoy opponents, judges, and juries. Why do you think you deserve respect, if your self-control and self-discipline as an advocate here are so poor?

    To be sure: There are people who comment here who regularly engage in nothing but ad hominem or drivel, and I’ve concluded that I’m not only going to respond to them in kind, I’m going to enjoy doing so. The question for me is: Are you someone in that category? Is that just in your nature, regardless of newly announced good intentions? That is how it seems to me, sir.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  581. This is Trump’s usual habit of, when he has some kind of a case, going beyond it.

    The New York Times went too far in saying the meeting could not take place (and even now they keep on writing about it being salvaged) That’s not what the person said.

    But Trump couldn’t leave it at that. He had to claim that the New York Times made up their source.

    There was a real person who worked for Trump who said that. Not only that but the White House probably issued a transcript.

    In Trump’s defense it could be said that Trump didn’t realize that something somebody said was being misconstrued – but he should know that. It’s happened before. It’s not that the New York Times made up a source or talked to an imposter.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  582. Saying someone is “in bed” with media deniers when he’s spouting the same TDS nonsense is not ad hominem.

    It’s observation.

    This entire NYTimes/CNN report/reaction was red meat to Trump haters who nonetheless should have fully engaged their brains instead of pouncing.

    Once again, The Federalist lays it all out nicely:

    Media Double Down After New York Times Gets Busted Peddling Fake News

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-new-york-times-gets-busted-peddling-fake-news/

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  583. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-cancels-north-korea-summit/story?id=55407276

    President Trump ‘dictated every word’ of letter to Kim Jong Un canceling summit

    It reads like that. It seems to have at least four or five disconnected ideas.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  584. how would you put it, sammeh, concisely, they lied about what pottinger said, imputing statements he didn’t make,

    narciso (d1f714)

  585. Clearly The New York Times peddled fake news. There may have been a real White House briefing with real White House officials, but The New York Times couldn’t be trusted to accurately summarize what the White House official said. And it wasn’t on a minor point.

    Recall that the whole point of their characterization was to say this official was at odds with Trump and that Trump wasn’t listening to his advisors. The fact that Trump and his advisors were not disagreeing with each other undermines the entire point of The New York Times story.

    But rather than admit that The New York Times was incorrect, and their reporters aren’t good at listening to Trump advisors or accurately conveying their remarks, the media claimed that Trump was the one lying, since, well, White House advisors who give briefings exist. See, Trump said no source existed who said the June 12 date was impossible — but a source exists who did not say that. Ergo: Trump lied.”

    Exactly.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  586. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/25/world/asia/trump-summit-north-korea.html

    As with so many issues involving this president, the views of his aides often have little effect on what he actually says. On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.

    The New York times was simply wrong.

    Maybe the official (Raj Shah, the Deputy Press Secretary thought it was impossible, but he didn’t say so.

    Here we have part of the transcript: (A full transcript should be available on whitehouse.gov somewhere)

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-new-york-times-gets-busted-peddling-fake-news/

    I don’t know if the federalist made its own transcript or this is the official one but it goes:

    REPORTER: Can you clarify that…the President obviously announced in the letter and at the top of the bill signing that the summit is called off. But then, later, he said it’s possible the existing summit could take place, or a summit at a later date. Is he saying that it’s possible that June 12th could still happen?

    WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: That’s…

    REPORTER: Or has that ship sailed, right?

    WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: I think that the main point, I suppose, is that the ball is in North Korea’s court right now. And there’s really not a lot of time. We’ve lost quite a bit of time that we would need in order to, I mean, there’s been an enormous amount of preparation that’s gone on over the past few months at the White House, at State, and with other agencies and so forth. But there’s a certain amount of actual dialogue that needs to take place at the working level with your counterparts to ensure that the agenda is clear in the minds of those two leaders when they sit down to actually meet and talk and negotiate, and hopefully make a deal. And June 12 is in 10 minutes, and it’s going to be, you know. But the President has said that he has — someday, that he looks forward to meeting with Kim.

    The official did not say it is impossible – he just meant it would be hard to see that happening by June 12. (he was wrong)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  587. Let’s assume it is an observation, harkin, but where does it get you?

    Isn’t it an effort to discredit the speaker no matter what he says?

    DRJ (15874d)

  588. Yes, harkin, I’m not being at all ad hominem when I say that I’ve observed that your reasoning is that of a small child, with his fingers planted in his ears, whirling in circles and chanting, “He didn’t say ‘impossible,’ he didn’t say ‘impossible’! Nah-nah-nah I can’t hear you!”

    Oh, wait. Yes, that is ad hominem. I’m saying you’re childish and close-minded to boot. I’m observing it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  589. and there is no need for adhominem, beldar, just point out an equally valid interpretation,

    narciso (d1f714)

  590. Rosanne Barr oy vey
    it was nice to know you gal
    you will pay teh price

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  591. but they told us Ivanka wouldn’t let this happen:

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1001453941337608192

    narciso (d1f714)

  592. Wear that badge with honor, harkin.

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  593. You know, Trump may have asked his aides, or his press secretary, if anybody said that holding the meeting on June 12 would be impossible.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  594. 603. narciso (d1f714) — 5/29/2018 @ 9:23 am

    how would you put it, sammeh, concisely, they lied about what pottinger said, imputing statements he didn’t make.

    They didn’t lie – they assumed the official (apparently Raj Shah, not somebody named Pottinger) was lying, in refusing to say there was no hope left for the June 12 date, so they made him say that it was impossible.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  595. “Let’s assume it is an observation, harkin, but where does it get you?

    Isn’t it an effort to discredit the speaker no matter what he says?

    — –

    Pointing out to someone that something they said is wrong and in this case is just one of a crazy chorus is not to “discredit the speaker no matter what he says”, don’t you think that’s an unreasoned leap?

    The really interesting thing about this thread is that Trump is at times a lying, babbling, incoherent mess (which I usually attribute to emotion and lack of restraint) but in jumping on a fake news story, the Never-Trumpers have reduced themselves to same.

    I mean, look at Beldar – it’s getting clinical for someone who usually seems halfway sane.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  596. “Wear that badge with honor, harkin.”

    I guess I do but it’s depressing that so many people I usually respect have doubled down instead of just admitting they’d been played.

    The anger is telling because you’re never as angry as when you mess up calling someone out but it’s yourself with egg on the face.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  597. So let’s say the long odds come in and this meeting actually happens on June 12 (and BTW Haiku, if the odds of this happening improve remember Baldar’s 10:1 offer is open until midnight June 12 KST), does that make Trump a liar (on this specific issue of course)? The NYT? This Pottinger guy? Pompeo? All “senior white house officials”? All people whose names begin with ‘P’? Help me out here. Also, provide appropriate odds. Given the number of players perhaps a pari mutuel setup might be appropriate. Or is that impossible?

    https://youtu.be/TxVdhAJr1So?t=9s

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  598. As with so many other quotes from or about Churchill, there is doubt about this one’s provenance, but:

    Churchill owned, and kept honed, and used with deliberation, the full range of rhetorical techniques, which is part of why he was effective as a charismatic advocate and leader. When hit with ad hominem, he gave better than he got.

    Thus, when (supposedly) Lady Astor, much provoked by Churchill’s stubborn opinions, insisted that if she were Churchill’s wife, she would poison his tea, Churchill replied, “Madam, if I were your husband, I’d drink it!”

    I honestly don’t think swc notices when he shifts from advocacy about public figures (e.g., Trump, Obama) and public policies (e.g., the U.S. position regarding a summit with North Korea) to attacks on other commenters or our host. I’m trying to encourage him to be more sensitive to that distinction so that he’ll seem less of an insufferable @sshole here.

    But the counter-hypothesis is that swc knows well when he’s going ad hominem, and intends it. In fact, that may be the more fair presumption, for he is an educated man whose day-job largely consists of advocacy and the employment of rhetorical techniques to marshal and present evidence.

    That’s okay too. Ad hominem is not a universally prohibited technique, as Churchill’s example shows, but it does generate particular consequences, usually in the form of hurt feelings or resentment or anger, or some combination of those, on the part of the person attacked. If that’s intended — as, for example, when I called out Haiku for labeling Patterico a tool of the liberal media, and when I definitely wanted to ridicule him in particular because I know he knows better, and I could easily find past comments in his own words so confirming — then own it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  599. apparently Raj Shah

    Great, now the racist Trump is setting up POC’s to take the fall. Of course that name, Raj Shah…That’s a double lie right there.

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  600. @ Skorcher: My offer wasn’t open to acceptance through midnight June 12th. Rather, that’s the expiration of the time period for which the summit had to take place for my hypothetical betting opponents to win their bets. See my #340 above; I put the $100 bill back in my wallet this morning.

    However, if someone wants to re-open discussions, I’m still interested.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  601. Scorch, you’re missing the point and I suspect it’s because of Beldar’s inane effort to misdirect with his silly bet.

    But it is telling because it’s symptomatic of this entire thread, arguing something and entirely missing the actual issue.

    The whole issue is not when the meeting happens, or if it does at all, that’s pure bait-and-switch by the Never Trumpers.

    The only issue is the New York Times said an official said something he did not say in an effort to portray the White House as disconnected and Trump and his staff offering conflicting, opposing viewpoints.

    That has actually happened many times before and will again but the Times felt the need to create it where it [cough] did not exist.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  602. OK, looks like I need even more help. What does this series of posts mean?

    And are you willing to take me up on my wager?

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2018 @ 11:28 pm

    I propose my $100 against your $50. It’ll be like taking candy from a baby, if this was fake news.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2018 @ 11:30 pm

    (In #182, you’re the candy-stealer. I’m pointing out what a great deal this wager should be for any Trump fan at 2-to-1 odds.)

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2018 @ 11:31 pm

    I’ll even give you until 11:59 p.m. Korean local time on June 12th.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2018 @ 11:34 pm

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  603. Scorch, you’re missing the point and I suspect it’s because of Beldar’s inane effort to misdirect with his silly bet.

    But it is telling because it’s symptomatic of this entire thread, arguing something and entirely missing the actual issue.

    The whole issue is not when the meeting happens, or if it does at all, that’s pure bait-and-switch by the Never Trumpers.

    Oh, I understand that. But the bet was over the meeting happening. Let me cut/paste from further up…cut for brevity. If I missed (real) context, please show me where:

    Quibbling about the difference between practically impossible and impossible is stupid. I wish to heavens that all of the lawyers attempting to cross-examine my clients would engage in that level of stupid quibbling.

    Perhaps Trump will amaze Mr. Pottinger, the NYT/WaPo/CNN/Newsweek media, and all of the rest of us by holding the meeting on June 12 anyway. Are there any Trump fans willing to make a wager with me? I’ll even give you 2 to 1 odds.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2018 @ 11:14 pm

    Two to one odds for something you’ve labeled as “fake news” should be a very good bet, right?

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2018 @ 11:17 pm

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  604. Mr. shipwreck is *not* doing the ad hommer he said that some people are in bed with media deniers

    and what are media deniers?

    … a “media denier” is someone who refuses to acknowledge these transparent intentions in the reporting and editing decisions of outlets like the NYT.

    he’s got a point, Mr. shipwreck does, cause of how the NYT lies so much and it’s always to make non-progressives like President Trump look bad

    i think for sure it’s good to take a beat and ask some skeptical questions about why the NYT lies so much

    and that’s not ad hommer that’s just a good policy

    a good example of ad hommer was how roseanne did on that malignant dwarf-woman what lives with food stamp and wanda sykes says I’m so done with you roseanne your tweet was no good and then roseanne says oh my goodness i apologize

    me i thought it was funny and trenchant

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  605. Seems like there is a lot of discussion about how to properly debate here. Here’s a thought. How about — if someone said to you in person what you are about to say, would you punch them in the face?

    If the answer is yes — well, some of you can say “job well done” and post merrily!

    Appalled (96665e)

  606. Though I agree with you about what the real issue is, harkin. But as shown here, one cannot wager on subjective matters as to what someone said and what is meant by what they said and blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. But one can wager on the occurrence or occurrence of a discrete event. I’m only in it for the money. OK, I lie. Bragging rights. I’m only in it for the bragging rights….not that I’d turn down the money…actually the money would be good…

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  607. And two more entries from Beldar replete with moralizing lectures to his “lessers”, and a complete absence of attention to the point of the debate AS STARTED BY ME at 52.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  608. Finding instances of media inaccuracy, and calling them out on it, does not equate to accepting the proposition that the NYT and others — MSNBC and CNN among them, though seemingly not offenders in this instance — report straight news stories in a way DESIGNED to cast an unflattering light on Trump even when there is no basis to do so.

    And, I put it to you — is “inaccurate paraphrase” an rational justification for what the NYT did, or an oxymoron.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  609. Now to be fair, i do respect Beldar’s right to rescind his offer at any time before being finalized. I confess I did not read #340 as I am only half way through War and Peace and I promised my 12th grade english teacher I’d finish that one first.

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  610. Beldar, are there any exceptions? For instance, a natural disaster, a calamity elsewhere in the world that requires The President’s attention, NK pulls out June 11th at midnight, etc.

    From what I have read the basis of your thought here is that it won’t happen due to Trump. Is that the narrow scope of the bet?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  611. H: “The whole issue is not when the meeting happens, or if it does at all, that’s pure bait-and-switch by the Never Trumpers”.

    S: “Oh, I understand that.”

    In your case my job is done.

    harkin (9803a7)

  612. 626.”And two more entries from Beldar replete with moralizing lectures to his “lessers”, and a complete absence of attention to the point of the debate AS STARTED BY ME at 52.”

    When they insist on talking about everything except the actual issue, it’s the same thing as…..well…..a small child, with his fingers planted in his ears, whirling in circles and chanting.

    harkin (9803a7)

  613. But now wait a minute…per Beldar’s 340:

    My offer re June 12 — which I’ll hold open, per its terms (not some other, different bet that you might want to propose about Trump meeting Kim this year), until midnight Houston time tonight, before I put my $100 bill back in my wallet

    This implies the $100 bet for others, however the 10:1 bet with Col. Haiku was up to $1000 risk on Beldar’s side. I would say that while other bets are off the table, the bet with Col Haiku is still open. Who’s man enough to agree with me?

    Forgive me if this is addressed later in the post. I’ve only read about a quarter of it so far.

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  614. 17. 20. 22. Re; Joshua Holt release from jail in Venezuela

    It appearef in print on page 27 of the Sunday May 27, 2018 New York Times

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/26/world/americas/american-citizen-held-in-venezuela-released-trump-announces.html?login=email&auth=login-email

    I read it somewhere else. A story about Joshua Holt is also online at the New York Daily News and New York Post.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  615. swc:

    You are right – your comment at 52 was actually the first good, detailed attempt to interject reality in to the subject.

    I applaud you for pointing out the OP is someone “who regularly writes that “words have meanings”, and ignoring a word or two can be deemed a “misrepresentation” of that the author said.

    harkin (9803a7)

  616. “The NYT was imprecise…”

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  617. “A legend in his own mind.”

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  618. “I’m Your Huckleberry”

    —- Beldar is… Doc Holliday in “Tombstone”

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  619. The View should be cancelled any day now… right?

    NJRob (b00189)

  620. 580: Strange that the name of the attacker is not given (and they know who he is as they say he was an inmate). I checked another link (USA Today) and they did not give name either.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  621. 584-585:

    Yep. And there is a clear difference of “in 10 minutes” (very unlikely) from the briefer and “impossible” from NYT. And given Trump had said “could even be”, it was clear he expressed a small chance. But NYT wanted to contrast the two and ‘extremely unlikely’ and ‘unlikely’ would not be enough of a contrast. Might just read like a refinement versus a disagreement.

    Oh…and NYT has some of the best writers in the world. They know exactly what they were doing. These were not kids saying impossible in Valley-speak (like misuse of literal to mean figurative).

    And they have a story today saying it might happen on the 12th. While scolding the idea. So…sure seems like “impossible” was off.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  622. But rather than admit that The New York Times was incorrect, and their reporters aren’t good at listening to Trump advisors or accurately conveying their remarks, the media claimed that Trump was the one lying, since, well, White House advisors who give briefings exist. See, Trump said no source existed who said the June 12 date was impossible — but a source exists who did not say that.

    Mollie is disingenuous here. First, the issue is not whether “White House advisors who give briefings exist” but whether the one who gave this briefing exists — because Trump claimed he didn’t, and he does.

    Second, this is false: “See, Trump said no source existed who said the June 12 date was impossible.” No, that is the apologists’ recharacterization of what he said. What he actually said was:

    The Failing ‪@nytimes‬ quotes “a senior White House official,” who doesn’t exist, as saying “even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.” WRONG AGAIN! Use real people, not phony sources.

    Logically this breaks down as: “A quotes B, who doesn’t exist, as saying C. Wrong!” That is different from saying “A quotes B as saying C, but no B who said C exists.” Those are logically different statements and Trump said the first while his apologists rewrite it to pretend he said the second. If B exists but said something slightly different from C, the first statement (which he actually said) is false because it says B does not exist. The second statement (which apologists made up) would not be false.

    If there were any doubt that he intended version 1 and not version 2, that doubt is removed by his saying the NYT should use “real people” and not “phony sources.” What he is saying here is very clear to anyone who is intellectually honest.

    Mollie and many of you are rewriting Trump’s quote entirely, even as you wail about the NYT rewriting the official’s statement in a MUCH more minor way.

    This is convincing to partisans and to nobody else.

    Patterico (f653bf)

  623. The anger is telling because you’re never as angry as when you mess up calling someone out but it’s yourself with egg on the face.

    The egg does not exist.

    Patterico (f653bf)

  624. Be that as it may, that only took a bit over 500 comments for you to partially own up.

    The thing to own up to does not exist.

    Now just admit that the official who said it was impossible does not exist and you’ve taken the first two steps in combatting TDS.

    TDS does not exist.

    Patterico (f653bf)

  625. And, I put it to you — is “inaccurate paraphrase” an rational justification for what the NYT did, or an oxymoron.

    No.

    Patterico (f653bf)

  626. If B exists but said something slightly different from C,…

    Is there a B that exists that said exactly C?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  627. Hypo: Trump says Obama wiretapped him. James Comey says: “Trump claims that a wiretap on his phone, which never existed, was placed on his phone by Obama. Wrong!” It emerges in the hypo that there was a wiretap placed on Trump’s phone by someone in the Obama administration who was not Obama.

    I’m sure Mollie Hemingway would write a piece saying Comey didn’t lie, because the wiretap on Trump’s phone placed by someone other than Obama means a wiretap placed by Obama did not exist. So Comey told the truth when he said that it did not exist, even though a wiretap placed by someone else did exist. In the hypo.

    You guys would also totally defend Comey in that situation on account of your intellectual honesty. After all, if you did otherwise that would show you have CDS (Comey Derangemenet Syndrome).

    Patterico (f653bf)

  628. Still waiting to hear “lie” get walked back by Patterico. There is a difference with flailing around and making a mistake versus the intent that is required of a lie. Clearly Trump was not into the minutia of the background briefing as he made a comment about use real name when WH had instructed not to. He saw the NYT story and knew it was incorrect. Instead of attacking the incorrect remark he said no one existed who briefed that. But in any case, a “lie” requires intent. If he was up to speed on the details, what possible reason could he have to make a LIE about a briefing that definitely took place.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  629. BuDuh, in example 1 B’s existence is independent of what he says. I used symbols to make this point easier to understand. People who take symbolic logic need to practice reducing English to symbols. The Trump apologists here would fail the class.

    Patterico (f653bf)

  630. Anonymous, I am interacting with you in this comment to remind you that I told you I was done interacting with you on this thread. There is a screamingly obvious retort available but I don’t interact with people who make pointed references to my job in the middle of an argument. Please do not pretend I didn’t say this, and stop acting like you are expecting a response that I told you you are not going to get.

    Patterico (f653bf)

  631. @ Scorcher: The point of the 11:59 term was that the opposing bettor could win even if the summit started very, very late on June 12th. I was clarifying that I wouldn’t, for example, demand that the meeting have started first thing in the morning on the 12th, or by noon, or by supper-time in Singapore.

    To be accepted, though, the bet had to be made by midnight last night. It’s a point of no significance because no one accepted the bet. Nor has anyone asked me to reopen the offer, which I’m entirely willing to discuss.

    @ swc: I now conclude that your remarkably gracious apology was insincere. You clearly cannot or will not discipline yourself to avoid ad hominem, and have returned to it. That is a great pity, but I must say that I’m not very surprised. So be it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  632. So B never has to be faithfully quoted for this logic to pan out? Could the NYT’s have said that B stated that “Tomahawks were heading NK’s way and should arrive at the Pyongyang before the end of the day” and the argument still holds that all we need to worry about is that a B exists, no matter what he actually said?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  633. Nor has anyone asked me to reopen the offer, which I’m entirely willing to discuss.

    I asked for a clarification at 629, Beldar. I may be interested in a healthy wager.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  634. No, Bu-Duh, the terms of the bet were that the men had to meet face to face — that’s the definition of a summit meeting — and it had to be on June 12. I’m not remotely interested in some bet that turns on Trump’s good or bad intentions, and the bettor has to accept the risk that there might be an earthquake in Singapore that day.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  635. 649:

    I don’t expect a response, even that of 649. I reserve the right to criticize and debate your remarks though. It’s no problem that you don’t reply. Be happy.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  636. So B never has to be faithfully quoted for this logic to pan out? Could the NYT’s have said that B stated that “Tomahawks were heading NK’s way and should arrive at the Pyongyang before the end of the day” and the argument still holds that all we need to worry about is that a B exists, no matter what he actually said?

    Obviously it is not “all we need to worry about” nor did I say that. But in evaluating the truth of statement 1, the outlandish nature of any misquotation is logically irrelevant to the truth of the assertion that B does not exist. If you accept that, you have to show that I mistranslated Trump’s sentence into symbols, which you cannot do especially after applying the context available at the end of his tweet.

    You’re making this harder than it is. I understand why: you have a conclusion you want to reach and the logic is getting in the way.

    Patterico (f653bf)

  637. Ok, thanks for the clarification. How about we wager days away from commenting at Patterico’s? You stay away for 100 days and I will stay away for 50 days? Patterico doesn’t have to do anything. Unless you would like him to impose a ban to keep us honest.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  638. Beldar, if any of these people bet and lost they would say the bet doesn’t exist. I would never wager with people so willing to torture the English language. It’s a wonder we continue to talk to such people.

    Patterico (f653bf)

  639. OK, let’s review…Again…

    And are you willing to take me up on my wager?

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2018 @ 11:28 pm

    I propose my $100 against your $50. It’ll be like taking candy from a baby, if this was fake news.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2018 @ 11:30 pm

    (In #182, you’re the candy-stealer. I’m pointing out what a great deal this wager should be for any Trump fan at 2-to-1 odds.)

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2018 @ 11:31 pm

    I’ll even give you until 11:59 p.m. Korean local time on June 12th.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2018 @ 11:34 pm

    Now all of this is being said in the context of daring/challenging those offered to take the bet. CH included AFAICT. Now if I try real hard and am being generous, yes, I can see your point as to referencing the summit not the bet. But that seems kinda not offering much. After all, if the summit was to happen on June 12, it certainly would happen on June 12 before midnight. That’s kinda the meaning of June 12. That’s kinda what the bet is about. But OK, I’m feeling magnanimous today so I will be so generous. The question remains however, do you see mine?

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  640. 601. Saying someone is “in bed” with media deniers when he’s spouting the same TDS nonsense is not ad hominem.

    It’s observation.

    Saying someone is “in bed with media deniers” is a way to say they are joining with people you think are wrong, harkin. They may be wrong but showing they are involved doesn’t rebut an argument.

    It’s no different than saying “You are in bed with Republicans when they spout 2nd Amendment nonsense.” If that works in your case, it works in both cases. It is discrediting an argument because of who is making it, not because the argument has been shown wrong.

    DRJ (15874d)

  641. Obviously it is not “all we need to worry about” nor did I say that.

    I didn’t say that you said that. I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the specific logical argument. As in, “for the purposes of proving your breakdown of Trump’s tweet and its accuracy all we need to worry about is that a B exists, no matter what he actually said?”

    you have to show that I mistranslated Trump’s sentence into symbols, which you cannot do especially after applying the context available at the end of his tweet.

    Sure. Are you using the symbols as generic place holders or are you using them in a chronological sense as in the function of symbol B must be applied before the function of symbol C?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  642. 2:1 odds -> 33% chance. Inconsistent with NYT “impossible”. Consistent with “could even happen” by Trump.

    P.s. Makes me think of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3sLhnDJJn0 😉

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  643. Bu-Duh, I’ve not been using the blocking script lately. But if I want the satisfaction of making your comments disappear here, at least from my own browser, I don’t have to wait for June 12th, and wouldn’t be limited to 100 days, so long as it works. All I have to do is click a button that’s still in my bookmarks row.

    @ Patterico: For purposes of the bet, my trust only had to reside in the stakeholder. But no one’s accepted.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  644. Now just admit that the official who said it was impossible

    You’re talking about a specific person. You know what his name is. You know he exists. Bill Clinton just called to say ‘jeez man, you’re really splitting hairs!’

    Let’s pretend the GOP has a moral compass. If you lie that a person doesn’t exist, that is a lie even if the person you are lying about offered a good faith paraphrase of ‘impossible’ that you would prefer was ‘extremely unlikely.’ And to pretend this was what Trump meant is also a lie. Trump’s argument was clear: the NYT’s reliance on anonymous sources means the NYT is making people up. Trump knew that it was his own administration that stipulated its source be anonymous. The whole argument was a lie. Trump claiming to oppose anonymous sources was a lie. Lie lie lie.

    To add to the lying, now people are pretending the NYT claimed a person used the exact word “impossible.” It wasn’t a quote, and the only reason to exaggerate this is to muddy the waters.

    If Trump wants to demand his sources be anonymous and then reflexively flip out and pretend those anonymous sources don’t exist, he is a liar.

    “now just admit” hahahahahaha. The need to sneer is just icing on the cake from y’all on this one.

    Dustin (760025)

  645. I guess you don’t want the satisfaction of winning your bet. Not as confident as you were? I understand.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  646. 603. how would you put it, sammeh, concisely, they lied about what pottinger said, imputing statements he didn’t make,

    narciso (d1f714) — 5/29/2018 @ 9:23 am

    I’m not Sammy but:

    1. Maybe they made an honest attempt to report the substance of Pottinger’s message, e.g., that the summit was impossible because it is so near in time, or

    2. Maybe they carelessly or inaccurately described it as “impossible” instead of using Pottinger’s words, but there was no intent to deceive, or

    3. Maybe they chose the most extreme words because it made a better story, or

    4. Maybe they look for ways to mess with Trump and his Administration, even if it means they lie.

    I don’t know what happened but it is the NY Times so anything is possible. Nevertheless, to me, the most likely explanation is 1 or 2.

    I think Trump will now move mountains to have the summit on June 12, even if it hurts our national interests. The NY Times is the one newspaper he cares about. If he can’t get them to like him, he will do anything to hurt them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  647. 644 – the question wasn’t posed to you – you’re the one who employed the oxymoron as an explanation for overlooking the NYT’s offense.

    Shipwreckedcrew (0c81af)

  648. there’s no such thing as a Pottinger you can tell it’s just a stupid made-up name

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  649. Is there a B that exists that said exactly C?

    Is your question is there a NYT that quoted the word impossible? Because that part didn’t happen. Even if it had, the argument is incredibly stupid because the guy exists even if misquoted. But he wasn’t quoted at all, let alone misquoted, and everyone who isn’t a complete hack has agreed the NYT’s paraphrase was reasonable.

    It’s not the NYT’s fault that Trump flip flops on everything.

    Dustin (760025)

  650. Beldar is right that his offer to bet has expired:

    340. *** My offer re June 12 — which I’ll hold open, per its terms (not some other, different bet that you might want to propose about Trump meeting Kim this year), until midnight Houston time tonight, before I put my $100 bill back in my wallet ***

    . The June 12 date (in Korea) was the time he gave for Trump to start the summit.

    DRJ (15874d)

  651. I Am Teh Walrus Make Us An Omelette

    He is me as you are he as you are me
    And we are all together
    See how they write, but try as they might
    See how they lie
    I’m trying

    Sh*ting on teh Jeff flake
    Waiting for his time to come
    Liberation T-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesdays
    Man you’ve been a haughty boy
    You let your mask slip down
    I am the eggman
    They are the eggmen
    Make us an omelette
    Yoo hoo ya rube

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  652. Caught by teh fine print…

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  653. So you had to bet yesterday but you might not know who won until June 12 in Korea.

    DRJ (15874d)

  654. But no one’s accepted.

    No. Nor has Beldar accepted my bet. But judging from his reactions, only Beldar gets to define terms, redefine terms, and only Beldar’s bets say anything about other people’s sincerity should they refuse to take his “generous” wager. 2:1 odd. Wow. Imagine. I’ll give 2:1 odds that the Red Sox (team selected at random, not following MLB yet this year) do NOT win the World Series this year. So, to be clear…Red Sox 2018 WS champs, you get $200, RS not WS champs, you send me $100. C’mon. 2:1. Them’s great odds. Surely there’s a couple sincere Red Sox fans out there.

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  655. It has been a long thread, DRJ. You probably missed this:

    To be accepted, though, the bet had to be made by midnight last night. It’s a point of no significance because no one accepted the bet. Nor has anyone asked me to reopen the offer, which I’m entirely willing to discuss.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/29/2018 @ 12:45 pm

    You may think it is “impossible” to bet Beldar now, due to the reporting, but Beldar, in his own words, suggested otherwise.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  656. Ah…realize now I should have said Astros. Hey, same bet for the Astros. 2:1. C’mon Beldar, you’re an Astros fan IIRC. Or so you say…

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  657. 662… shorter beldar, Buduh… speak to Teh Hand and catch my pigtails in yo’ rearview…

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  658. Red Sox fans are anything but sincere.

    NJRob (3d5c48)

  659. Red Sox fans are anything but sincere.

    Perhaps not. Though my limited experience they are a bit rabid. Especially after they finally won one (first sign of the Apocalypse). Thus…

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  660. That would he a new offer to bet and thus a new bet, presumably with different terms.

    Here’s a thought: If someone wants to bet with Beldar, Make him an offer.

    DRJ (15874d)

  661. @ Skorcher: A bet, like any other contract, requires a meeting of the minds on all essential terms of the contract.

    When one party offers to enter into a binding contract, he may include in the proposal, as an essential term, a time fuse, within which the offer must be accepted, and without which timely acceptance, the offer expires. That’s what I did.

    I’m not interested in sports betting. I’m not interested in wagering days away from these comments. Others were, and are, free to propose such bets by making their own offers with their own selection of different terms than I did. If I saw one that I wanted to accept, or to make a counter-offer to, I could, but no one’s offered me terms that interest me.

    I hope this will conclude our discussion on this topic, Skorcher.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  662. Bettors get to negotiate the terms of the bets they make and accept. Beldar would have bet on the terms he offered yesterday, but this is a different day. Betting terms change daily in sports, politics, even for naming Royal babies.

    DRJ (15874d)

  663. 33% versus 0%. What is the ratio? The limit from the right of the ratio? Hmm….tough.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0cvqT1tAE

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  664. Here’s a thought: If someone wants to bet with Beldar, Make him an offer.

    That has already happened.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  665. I’m not interested in wagering days away from these comments.

    I figured.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  666. I don’t blame him. The terms he is being offered don’t seem as generous as the terms he offered yesterday. I actually thought about accepting yesterday since I think Trump is going to do anything to make that summit happen, but I didn’t want to take Beldar’s money. 😉

    DRJ (15874d)

  667. You may have to make better offers. Show off your negotiating skills!

    DRJ (15874d)

  668. “TDS does not exist.
    __ _

    “Anonymous, I am interacting with you in this comment to remind you that I told you I was done interacting with you”

    __ _

    This is what a day of chasing illogic looks like.

    Almost 700 posts now and they can’t name the official who said it was impossible.

    It’s almost like he never existed.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  669. I made a great offer. Beldar must think he has too much to lose. He could counter, right?

    Ball is in his court.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  670. 687:

    He shouldn’t have posted to me to tell me (again) that he won’t post to me. It made me feel like I EXIST. 😉

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  671. No, there is no obligation to counter. A contract is an agreement bet ween a willing seller and a willing buyer. He wanted to bet yesterday but that doesn’t mean he has to today.

    DRJ (15874d)

  672. Via LATimes:

    “California’s elections officials have found themselves with an unexpected headache ahead of the June 5 primary: potentially thousands of cases where two voter registration forms were created for one person, errors caused by the state’s “motor voter” program that launched last month.

    But local and state officials said Wednesday they don’t believe the foul-up has resulted in actual mistakes in California’s voter database. The errors are being resolved one at a time in each county’s elections office, a lengthy process that coincides with one of the busiest periods of the year.

    “We don’t have the time to be researching this, but we have to because we’re being thrown into it,” said Kammi Foote, registrar of voters in Inyo County.”

    I wonder why the LATimes didn’t say it was impossible to fix before the June election.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  673. 690.

    The original bet offers on the 27th and 28th did not have a time frame for how long the offer was open. On the 29th (more than 24 hours after first bet offer), we have this restriction added that it only applied for a day.

    Note, I’m not saying that Beldar needs to make open ended offers. But also, nothing magical about “a day” for the offer since he did not specify it. After all, odds at Wall Street change by the second. A bet offer like Simmons Tierney would reasonably be expected to be offered for more than a day. So…I’m not gigging Beldar for not being sooper dooper precise on the wager offer. But also, no reason why people have to expect that the initial offer was time bound.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  674. Q: “And, I put it to you — is “inaccurate paraphrase” a rational justification for what the NYT did, or an oxymoron.”

    A: “No.”

    Lol

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  675. @ DRJ (#685): Yes, I also fear that Trump will rush unpreparedly into a summit with no preparation done, with no clarification of parameters, and therefore, with slim prospects for a breakthrough but great prospects for a disaster.

    I actually would support Trump including some deadlines, however, and holding tightly to them. They need to be very public and conspicuous deadlines.

    The point of my bet was to confirm that none of the Trump supporters insisting that the summit was still possible for June 12 were willing to put their money where their mouths were. And in fact, none were.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  676. @Beldar. I’m not exactly a Trump supporter but I would wager on June 12. Not too much.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  677. 695:

    Shifting the goal posts from “impossible” to unlikely (33%). “Could even happen” is consistent with a low probability event. Impossible is not.

    Furthermore, your initial offers did not specify a duration for how long the offer was open. You had to come back later and amend that.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  678. I think that is incorrect, Anonymous 692.

    DRJ (15874d)

  679. 695: “still possible” (your words) is not the same as 33% chance (from your odds). IANAL but I did take prob/stat class many moons ago.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  680. Contractual/betting terms can be explained, modified, amplified, limited, etc., at any time prior to acceptance. No one accepted the bet before Beldar’s comment 340. In fact, no one ever did.

    DRJ (15874d)

  681. 2:1 odds are not a low probability event. Las Vegas winning the Stanley Cup at the beginning of the season at 200:1 is a low probability event. But not impossible.

    NJRob (3d5c48)

  682. 700. Sure. And withdrawn as well. I’m just saying there is no reason why “a day” is magic. Certainly was not in the original statement.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  683. 700: And if the bet offer gets withdrawn, it would say the Bayesian implication has changed.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  684. Yes, I also fear that Trump will rush unpreparedly into a summit with no preparation done, with no clarification of parameters, and therefore, with slim prospects for a breakthrough but great prospects for a disaster.

    AT REYKJAVIK, SOVIETS WERE PREPARED AND U.S. IMPROVISED
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/02/16/at-reykjavik-soviets-were-prepared-and-us-improvised/01a8de77-f042-48e0-907c-ef8e21b1f03a/?utm_term=.31986e6182ff

    I think we can all agree that hopefully history repeats itself, right?

    Skorcher (85dd74)

  685. 665. DRJ (15874d) — 5/29/2018 @ 1:13 pm

    This is what one of the two New York Times reporters said about it yesterday, on Face the Nation.

    I think he was going to add that they made a mistake but he got cut off before he could.

    it.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-transcript-face-the-nation-on-may-27-2018

    BRENNAN: Time now for some political analysis.

    Mark Landler is a White House correspondent at “The New York Times.” Susan Glasser has a new job since last time we saw her. She now writes the column “Trump’s Washington” for “The New Yorker.” Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at “The National Review,” a columnist for “Bloomberg View,” and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute….

    …BRENNAN: Mark Landler, I want to give you a chance to respond to the president’s tweets, because they have been about your story that you co-wrote with your colleague, David Sanger, where he is calling into question some of your White House sources and whether they exist.

    MARK LANDLER, “THE NEW YORK TIMES”: Well, thank you, Margaret.

    The president tweeted yesterday that we, in a sense — in essence made up a source. And the — the issue at question was, would the president be ready to go to Singapore for a June 12th summit with Kim Jong-un. Last week, on the day the president pulled out, when he sent his letter to Chairman Kim, there was a background briefing held at the White House in the Briefing Room. A senior official briefed from the podium and was asked that question. And the answer he gave was, we have lost a lot of time. There’s a lot of work to be done. June 12th is ten minutes from now. And I wrote that this official basically was saying it was impossible to prepare properly for a meeting on June 12th.

    So the president, you know, tweeted that this person doesn’t exist. Well, he not only exists, he works for the president.

    So I think there’s two issues. One, the obvious issue, the president either doesn’t know or doesn’t care what other members of his administration are saying. I do think it raises a valid question about the whole notion of background briefings. These are a very well-entrenched Washington custom where you go listen to an official and you don’t quote that official by name. We’ve had long had debates about this internally.

    At this meeting, as at most other background sections, a reporter did say, can we put this on the record? The White House said, no. But if you were to hold these meetings on the record or insist on that, there would be far more accountability you wouldn’t necessarily have this kind of strange back and forth that we’ve had this week.

    BRENNAN: And it has been a strange run.

    You see, Margaret Brennan cut him off. He never got around to the second issue.

    You might note that word basically that I highlighted. It’s not in the article.

    Trump Says North Korea Summit May Be Rescheduled

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  686. You clearly cannot or will not discipline yourself to avoid ad hominem, and have returned to it. That is a great pity, but I must say that I’m not very surprised. So be it.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/29/2018 @ 12:45 pm

    I’m wondering if Trump had written the above, given his (and the commenter’s) penchant for ad hominems, just how mercilessly it would be mocked.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  687. AT REYKJAVIK, SOVIETS WERE PREPARED AND U.S. IMPROVISED

    The real improvisation was Kennedy in Vienna with Khrushchev in 1961.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  688. And while the official may have said they couldn’t prepare what they wrote was:

    On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  689. “I would gladly pay you Tuesday, June 12th for a wager today.”

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  690. 706… you mock him and he will not be mocked!

    https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/you-mock-me/n9742

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  691. Trump complained about ad hominem’s by Kim and Korea, random viking. In fact, he cancelled the summit because of “the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in [Kim’s] most recent statement.” I thought it was funny/ironic given how often Trump has made Republicans the brunt of his angry rhetoric.

    DRJ (15874d)

  692. “The point of my bet was to confirm that none of the officers would admit that the strawberries were in the wardroom mess. Still possible for Mr Keefer or Mr Merrick to put their money where their mouth is.

    Fyp

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  693. 698:

    Searched on “Beldar” in the page:

    175 (27MAY): initial wager. No “day” limit for the wager mentioned.

    176: wager offer, no “day limit

    180-181: NA

    182: wager offer, no “day” limit

    183, 184: wager mentioned, no “day” limit (for bet)

    186, 187: NA

    188: wager mentioned, no “day” limit

    190: wager mentioned, no “day” limit

    191: ditto

    192: NA…but I like the rubber/glue

    194-195 (DP), wager mentioned, day limit for bet not

    196: Open-ended stakes for a $1.00 bet. (I will assume that he is capping his risk, otherwise, counterparty could have gone $0.50 versus infinity.) Still no time limit mentioned on the offer.

    199: (just crossed to 28MAY EDT): bet offererd to others. No time limit.

    200: NA

    201-202: repeated bet offer, no time limit

    206: Odds bettered to 10-1. No time limit. (Although maybe you argue the “it’s a holiday”.)

    209: NA

    213: Bet offer renewed, no time limit.

    215: ditto

    218-219: NA

    221, 223, 227, 229, 230, 232, 234, 235: NA

    236: NA (although interesting to see “reasonably” slipped in as a qualifier for possible.) What’s that mean? Possible implies an event happening at all. Can I use 5% threshold (19-1), common p-value to designate “reasonable”? Or does Beldar think reasonabe means 33%? Donno…

    340 (28MAY, 1106 EDT): Beldar now adds the time restriction to the wager. So you are RIGHT…it wasn’t on the 29th. [Although…this is a much weaker Bayesian provocation to add the time restriction. “Impossible” or “not reasonably possible” would seem to imply something much bolder.]

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  694. Anonymous… your insolence and bold effrontery is surpassed only by your derisively brazen tongue… he thinks less of you, of that we can be sure…

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  695. I would say it’s unlikely that Beldar would change the conditions on his bet.

    NYTIMES – BREAKING: Harkin says it would be impossible for Beldar to change conditions of his bet.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  696. If Trump does make the June 12th meeting happen – I wonder if the New York Times will say that “Trump accomplishes the impossible”

    bendover (1b807d)

  697. “If Trump does make the June 12th meeting happen – I wonder if the New York Times will say that “Trump accomplishes the impossible”

    Drop the mic Dood – post of the thread.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  698. The NYT will claim they never said or implied “impossible”.

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  699. When CBS sent a crew to see the destruction of the tunnel, North Korea confiscated their radiiation detector, and that was the only thing they confiscated.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  700. Just to be clear and not leave myself exposed until Dec 31, and amongst gentlemen such would not need to be said but…I digress…my bet offer is good until June 12 or upon the death or complete/permanent political incapacitation of either Trump or Rocket Man Kim. I think that’s a fair qualification.

    Skorcher (ac561d)

  701. That should of course also read “whichever comes first”.

    Skorcher (ac561d)

  702. @ Anonymous: When an offer is made without a time fuse, the law nevertheless implies that the offer is open for a “reasonable” time, depending on the circumstances. Reasonable people can and do differ about what is reasonable, however.

    You are correct that as originally made (#175 on 5/27/2018 @ 11:14 pm), I included no time fuse on my offer. No one accepted, despite the passage of a considerable period of time. By the time of my comment #340 on 5/28/2018 @ 11:06 am, my best efforts to persuade any Trump fans to accept my offer appeared to have failed, despite the passage of almost twelve hours.

    It occurred to me, however, that the internet being what it is — and people like you being like you are — someone might argue that it would be reasonable to treat my offer as being open for acceptance all the way up until June 12th. I recognized in making the offer that I might lose the bet:

    Perhaps Trump will amaze Mr. Pottinger, the NYT/WaPo/CNN/Newsweek media, and all of the rest of us by holding the meeting on June 12 anyway. Are there any Trump fans willing to make a wager with me? I’ll even give you 2 to 1 odds.

    And I concede that is still a possibility, although I believe it an increasingly improbable one, despite the possibility that Trump will seize on this stupid fight with/over the NYT to rush into a summit without the preparations that are necessary.

    Accordingly, to avoid the remote possibility that someone could wait until June 11th, but then still collect 2-to-1 (or in Haiku’s case, 10-to-1) odds if indeed the summit was clearly about to happen (if, e.g., Trump were on Air Force One en route to Singapore and Kim was likewise on his plane headed there too), I decided that I didn’t want to leave open the possibility that someone could argue that June 11 was a “reasonable” period for my offer to have remained open.

    I could simply have withdrawn the offer altogether at that point, having made no commitment to keep it open any particular time. But doing that might have prompted someone to say, “Oh, but I was about to accept, and you hadn’t set any time fuse.” So I deliberately set the expiration time of the offer to midnight on May 28.

    Despite the extension, not a soul — not you, not Harkin, not swc, not Haiku, no one — either accepted my offer within that extended period, either.

    As someone who negotiates and documents contracts regularly as part of my profession, I am fairly careful about such things. I have been here. If this has taught you something of the law of offer & acceptance as a subset of contracts law, then that’s terrific. If not, that’s unfortunate.

    So what’s your point, if you have one? Do you complain now that you intended to accept, but were denied a reasonable opportunity to do so?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  703. Beldar:

    I don’t have a problem with you attaching the time offer on it. Obviously, it becomes close to riskless for people to make the bet only when it is in their favor.

    However, we definitely also had some movement towards summit (note, I am not saying greater than 50%. Just x% greater than y%) in last few days. And it is interesting that you took the bet off the table at this point (since we are past midnight 28th).

    And in any case, my point of 33% not equal to impossible, remains. So your whole bet game is shifting the goalposts. Trump never said it was likely to happen. He said “could even happen”. That definitely doesn’t sound like likeliness. So your bet game is flawed.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  704. Gambling is against my religion, Beldar, and I rebuke you for casting your lot with the reprobate crowd.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  705. “Despite the extension, not a soul — not you, not Harkin, not swc, not Haiku, no one — either accepted my offer within that extended period, either.”

    A. I didn’t notice it. There are 600+ comments and I had to thread back to even find the time restriction (first noticed it in discussion on the 29th).

    B. As per previous, I never bought into your goal post shifting that 33% = impossible.

    C. Not sure what odds I would want. I think when you first made it on the 27th that bet was in your favor. Since, then Bayesian hunch has moved (after all we have the NK trip to NYC). Still not saying it is likely, just more.

    D. I think 19-1 would definitely do it for me. (Probably not my indifference point but playing off the “reasonably possible”…this is 5% p-value.) Wire $19,000 to shippie and I will wire $1,000 to him.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  706. 725-D: Draft up the exact terms please. What summit means, date of it happening, when acceptance required and money to be wired, etc. I won’t be anal…but just describe what you think bet means. I want my 5% p-value though.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  707. I’ll tell you what, Anonymous. I’ll make a special one-time exception for you: I’ll repeat my original offer of $100 against your $50. swc is not an acceptable stakeholder to me; our host is, or you are welcome to propose someone else who we would both find acceptable. My counter expires at midnight Houston time tonight.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  708. “My counter expires at midnight Houston time tonight.”

    Is that when the victory party starts for the NBA’s Western Conference champions, teh Houston Rockets?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  709. (There are at least two dozen regular or semi-regular commenters here who I’d be happy to see serve as the stakeholder, but we need to reach agreement on that term, and get the stakeholder’s consent, or else (if consent can’t be obtained within that time) we could specify a list of successively alternative stakeholders.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  710. 725 — I never even gave you a hint that I would, nor did I ever express an opinion on whether a June 12 summit was possible, probable, likely, unlikely, difficult, improbable — you fill in the blank.

    IMO, you took the thread off on a related tangent with the offer that had no relationship to the point I was making in my series of comments, which had to do with the NYT reporting, and not the substance of the “impossible” v. “mostly impossible” distinction.

    As for a resolution on that question, I think we have all overlooked the most obvious and authoritative declaration on the “definitive” v. “qualified definitive” comparison:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  711. 727:

    Nice counter! I’ll stick with 725-D. You have until 2359 CDT today. Why don’t you come to me?

    Also point 725-B (and 723 last para) stands. And made several times before.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  712. 730: It was Beldar’s fault. He seduced me. Ahh…who am I kidding…I’m an often disciplined threadjacker.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  713. So the company says the regime will not disarm. Was that their conclusion 20 years ago?

    narciso (d1f714)

  714. 729.

    Yeah, yeah, we could figure that out. I just thought Patterico seemed a little too much:

    https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/49255570-5171-4e15-8a3d-4deaef9fa4ee

    Even if we had done Patterico, we would have had to nail him down (the ‘he said it once a long time’ ago is not iron clad that he is on call.)

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  715. “ I never even gave you a hint that I would, nor did I ever express an opinion on whether a June 12 summit….

    Same here. I even used the Eagles/Pats analogy to show what a misdirection his entire bet was.

    But he can’t let go of the weak irrelevant sauce because…..IT’S…..ALL…..HE….HAS.

    He can’t argue that the Times got it right. He can’t name the official who said it was impossible.

    It’s like the joke about clock faces and self pleasure:

    “Oh, we use that one in the back as a fan”

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  716. When you’ve past 666 comments the asteroid crashes.

    narciso (d1f714)

  717. @ Anonymous: Your re-offer at #731 of the terms you offered in #725 is respectfully declined. I further thank you for your admission in #732. FWIW, I’m not sure that swc actually intended his comment at #730 to actually refer to your comment at #725. I suspect he was talking to me, but then, I don’t speak for him.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  718. That’s an armageddon reference to the zero barrier.

    narciso (d1f714)

  719. 737: Thanks, man. How is Houston? Had a yob inquiry from there.

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  720. Yes, Beldar, it is very difficult to imagine that swc meant your 722.

    Despite the extension, not a soul — not you, not Harkin, not swc, not Haiku, no one — either accepted my offer within that extended period, either.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  721. Yes, my 730 was directed at Beldar’s 722.

    My apologies.

    Shipwreckedcrew (cb99de)

  722. I would say it’s unlikely that Beldar would change the conditions on his bet.

    NYTIMES – BREAKING: Harkin says it would be impossible for Beldar to change conditions of his bet.

    Trump: Harkin, who doesn’t exist, made a funny joke.

    Patterico (f653bf)

  723. Trump fans, prove to me that you are here for real discussion. Engage with my 641 in a genuine way. That is the meat of the argument and people ignore it. I will talk to anyone except Anonymous (and even Anknymous if he apologizes) who really grapples with the argument there.

    Patterico (2184ae)

  724. 741:

    Per the Internet debate rules of “if you ever make a single mistake, every other point you made is lost forever, forever…man drowning in lava” you have now fallen from grace. Join us imperfect sinners. Damn I miss the Garden.

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  725. BuDuh, you’re trying, so you get my full attention here until someone else addresses 641 or you show you’re not really addressing it. Give me a few minutes.

    Patterico (2184ae)

  726. This is what a day of chasing illogic looks like.

    Almost 700 posts now and they can’t name the official who said it was impossible.

    It’s almost like he never existed.

    The premise is wrong. All answers are in 641. If you are up for actual discussion, that is the comment to respond to.

    Patterico (2184ae)

  727. 743:

    I semi-apologized. (568) Partially? Weasely? How much more you need. You need me to go to confession and tell the priest I beat off? That’s too much.

    Besides…you are still noticing me. Admit it. You’re … for me.

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  728. Earth to Host:

    I am not a ‘Trump Fan’

    I refused to vote for him.

    I am uncomfortable as heck that he’s president.

    He lies and gets things wrong very often

    BUT IN THIS CASE the NYTimes messed up and not in a small way.

    In your 641 you say: “Mollie is disingenuous here. First, the issue is not whether “White House advisors who give briefings exist” but whether the one who gave this briefing exists — because Trump claimed he didn’t, and he does.”

    You keep belaboring this and it’s wrong. Anybody who doesn’t think Trump meant that the guy didn’t exist because (wait for it) NO ONE SAID IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE is being disingenuous.

    If he exists, just give us the name of the official who said it was impossible.

    Just own it before this thing hits 1,000 posts.

    It will hurt at first, the deranged TDS mob will be very disappointed in you, but you’ll feel better in the long run.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  729. Btw Host, at least you’re arguing the issue and not some lame bet on fortune-telling.

    Points for that.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  730. And if we’re asked to respond to your 641, maybe do likewise and respond to SWC’s 52, which was much more convincing and included this:

    So, if no one has a quote of the WH official using the word “impossible”, then I think Trump has a point. Since no WH Official said the June 12 date was “impossible”, the NYT reporters claiming that there was a WH Official who said the June 12 date was “impossible” is an example of the NYT reporters making up an imaginary WH Official to hang that word on so their characterization of the briefing fit their story’s narrative.“

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  731. I’m feeling like I exist. Rent free. Over the target. (There was another bromide I came up with, but I forget what it was.)

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  732. In the Obama administration they would have already put a tail on miss Kube

    narciso (d1f714)

  733. 749. Yep. Totally give him that. Good observation.

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  734. In your 641 you say: “Mollie is disingenuous here. First, the issue is not whether “White House advisors who give briefings exist” but whether the one who gave this briefing exists — because Trump claimed he didn’t, and he does.”

    You keep belaboring this and it’s wrong. Anybody who doesn’t think Trump meant that the guy didn’t exist because (wait for it) NO ONE SAID IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE is being disingenuous.

    No, I’m not asking you to cherry pick part of the comment. I want a reply to the symbolic logic I put there. That is a prerequisite for discussion with me in this thread going forward. Ignore that argument and I will ignore you. (That’s not directed at you specifically, harkin, but anyone who ignores it.)

    Patterico (115b1f)

  735. harkin, your 750 is already answered in 641, and only taking the logical argument of 641 head-on merits a response. It answers every objection Trump fans, and you, have made here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  736. 754:

    I was ignored for trolling, not for failure to honor the great man:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Boole

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  737. Sure. Are you using the symbols as generic place holders or are you using them in a chronological sense as in the function of symbol B must be applied before the function of symbol C?

    I’m not imposing any outside structure. I am making Trump’s meaning transparent by putting it in symbols. If you want to put what *you* think he said in symbols, go ahead — but it has to bear some resemblance to what he actually said.

    Treat this like a logic class. The assignment is to reduce the statement to symbols. Then the professor asks: assume that any thing is represented by the symbol you assigned to the phrase “senior White House official” actually exists. Given that assumption, tell me whether the statement you translated is logically true or logically false.

    You take the test and you answer that it’s logically true. I give you an F and you are now at my desk arguing for an A. What is your argument?

    THAT’S what I want to hear. But express it in symbols so that the emotional freight of the language is removed and we can examine the structure of his utterance. I have done that, and the logic compels me to answer that the statement is false as expressed.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  738. I semi-apologized. (568) Partially? Weasely? How much more you need.

    For the semi part to be removed.

    Besides…you are still noticing me.

    The semi-apology got an invitation to make it a full apology.

    You haven’t been here long, but I have a long history of people making actual complaints about me to my actual workplace because they dislike what I say on the Internet. So it’s a sensitive topic for me, and I need anyone I interact with here to understand that and respect it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  739. 758. I get it. I said I get it. Kind of amazed you eve have this blog. I was in the wrong to allude to your job. (Doesn’t change our differences on other things.)

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  740. So directly answering something you said in 641 is “cherry picking”?

    Have fun using symbolic logic to support bad reporting.

    harkin (2fa2ca)

  741. The Failing ‪@nytimes‬ quotes “a senior White House official,” who doesn’t exist, as saying “even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.” WRONG AGAIN! Use real people, not phony sources.

    A = NYT

    B = senior White House Official who does not exist

    C = non existent quote (immaterial per 655)

    D = real people

    E = phony sources

    B = E

    B ≠ D

    So A used B to create C.

    Or, A used E to create C.

    D did note create E, so A didn’t use D.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  742. Good enough, Anonymous. Are you willing to take on the challenge of my 641?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  743. Sorry. Typos.

    Last line:
    D did not create C, so A didn’t use D.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  744. So directly answering something you said in 641 is “cherry picking”?

    Have fun using symbolic logic to support bad reporting.

    This is another logical failure on your part. Analyzing the truth of falsity or Trump’s statement is completely independent of the analysis of the reporting. This would be clear to you if you were willing to have a discussion about the way Trump’s statement is logically broken down. You’re evidently not willing to have that discussion, but mounting an illogical attack on me doesn’t cause me to notice that you declined my offer (which, frankly, I expected, because I don’t think you’re here for real discussion).

    Patterico (115b1f)

  745. 762:

    Thanks for letting me off easy…didn’t want to tell the priest about the whole…sticky…situation.

    I will go look it up. Thread getting a little long (not even a sophistry excuse any more.(

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  746. So A used B to create C.

    BuDuh,

    Keep in mind that we’re translating Trump’s statement. So let me plug in the variables. If you’re trying to translate Trump’s statement, then when we translate it back out into English by plugging in your values for the variables, you are saying Trump said:

    The NYT used a senior White House Official who does not exist to create a non-existent quote.

    First of all, they didn’t quote him, but never mind that for now. If that was Trump’s claim, then it’s false, because remember I told you that the senior White House official does exist. So what actually happened was they used a senior White House official who DOES exist to create a non-existent paraphrase. That’s the opposite of what Trump said, because he said (even according to your symbols) that the official does not exist.

    You would still get an F. You have to try a different argument.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  747. Keep in mind, the exercise is to translate his actual statement (not something you wish he said, but the actual quote, which you can find by doing a control F search above for Wrong!) into symbols.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  748. D did not create C, so A didn’t use D.

    I think this is your explanation of something and not a translation. But the translation you used so far does not work. So I think my response has to end with that observation.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  749. remember I told you that the senior White House official does exist.

    I do remember that. But I thought we were analyzing what Trump wrote. Wouldn’t that person be D?

    If so, then he was mentioned in the tweet. As D.

    Here is your rule:

    But express it in symbols so that the emotional freight of the language is removed and we can examine the structure of his utterance.

    Working with the structure, where else would you insert a senior White House official?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  750. BuDuh, the translation was false before we ever got to D.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  751. Patty (is that OK to say that?):

    See 561 and 563. Other than that, I really need to concentrate. Not that smart. And 4 beers in. So…I still owe you a concentrating answer (to come).

    But big picture and fast, I think Trump was “a## talking” but not “lying”. As it would make no sense as a lie. and he literally (and not how a millenial will say it) doesn’t get into the minutia of background 1:30 briefings. And there was A BRIEFER but NOT a briefer who said X. But all that doesn’t change that NYT was wrong. But T did not describe it best.

    I really threw you a bone with the use real name…on Trump (as WH said no real name). But then again, I am just a new commenter…slimy non-lawyer. Who doesn’t go to confession.

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  752. (Slight clarification)

    Working with the structure, where else would you insert a senior White House official that exists?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  753. Pretend you’re not trying to prove a point and literally independently translate his actual quote into symbols.

    Example: the dog jumped over the fence.

    A jumped over the B.

    Here’s what he said:

    The Failing ‪@nytimes‬ quotes “a senior White House official,” who doesn’t exist, as saying “even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.” WRONG AGAIN! Use real people, not phony sources.

    If I put it in symbols, I say: A quotes B, who doesn’t exist, as saying C. Wrong again! Use D, not E.

    B is a senior White House official. The problem says he exists. But under my translation he doesn’t, so the statement is false.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  754. Keep in mind, the exercise is to translate his actual statement (not something you wish he said, but the actual quote

    I’m not wishing that he said anything. I put it in basic symbols.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  755. Anonymous,

    I actually think your position is one of the more reasonable here. You don’t have to go through the logical exercise because you already understand that what Trump said is false, and your only argument is that he had no reason to lie.

    To which the screamingly obvious response is: he deliberately exaggerates for effect, knowing the exaggeration is inaccurate but more dramatic, ALL THE TIME. His ghostwriter boasted about it in Art of the Deal. Informant becomes spy. A few million dollars becomes ten billion. A decent sized crowd smaller than Obama’s becomes way bigger than Obama’s. Non-wiretapping becomes wiretapping. And an inaccurate paraphrase becomes a made-up source.

    Arguing that he has no incentive to do this ignores his whole history.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  756. I’m not wishing that he said anything. I put it in basic symbols.

    So you really are saying

    D did not create C, so A didn’t use D

    is part of the translation. OK, fine. Let’s translate the whole thing.

    Your claim is that Trump said:

    The NYT used a senior White House Official who does not exist to create a non-existent quote. Real people did not create the non-existent quote, so the NYT didn’t use real people.

    This sounds more like your reinterpretation than an attempt to reduce the structure of his sentence to symbols. But let’s go with it. What does “use real people” mean there?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  757. I say: A quotes B, who doesn’t exist, as saying C

    Ahh, here is the problem. B already includes the fact that B doesn’t exist. We can add a letter if it is more clear.

    X = doesn’t exist

    Then it would be A quotes B, who has attribute X, as sayings C.

    Is there any other symbols that have attribute X?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  758. A quotes B, who has attribute X, as sayings C.

    And what is attribute X in his actual quote? Non-existence, right? Has to be.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  759. I think Trump occasionally hides behind being an ignorant thug and other times just is an ignorant thug. I can empathize with this given my own proclivities.

    Big picture, I think there are clearer places where he was willfully careless to the point of dishonesty than this one. Just like taking a gf to get an abortion (which will live with me forever) is more serious than whacking off or putting the seed inside her.

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  760. A quotes B, who has attribute X, as sayings C.

    So let’s assign values to the symbols:

    A = NYT
    B = senior Administration official
    X = non-existence
    C = what NYT claimed B said

    If we assume that B exists, and that C is not quite what B said, then two things are true:

    1. A did not accurately quote B
    2. The statement we are translating is false, because B does exist and thus lacks attribute X.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  761. Now in real life A didn’t “quote” B but characterized B’s statement as C, when B’s actual statement was more like: “C is all but true. I am standing here strongly implying C to you.”

    But I don’t want to get distracted from the central point, which is that we agree, do we not, that Trump’s statement *as translated by you* is false.

    We agree on that, right, BuDuh?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  762. Big picture, I think there are clearer places where he was willfully careless to the point of dishonesty than this one.

    There are gradations of Trump bullshit. This one may not be his biggest whopper of all time. That does not make it “not a whopper” since he tells a lot of them.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  763. Host @ 764

    Analyzing the truth of falsity or Trump’s statement is completely independent of the analysis of the reporting.

    EXACTLY.

    And, “analyzing the truth or falsity of Trump’s statement” is a sophomoric exercise of semantics and silly word games.

    Analyzing the reporting habits of the NYT and the agendas of the main stream media in covering Trump concerns a matter of constitutional significance.

    I’ll skip the former. I earned an “A” in Philosophy 101 at UCLA in 1981. I thought symbolic logic was pretty much a waste of “awake” time then, and nothing in the past 37 years has convinced me otherwise.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  764. It’s attention getting, though, because when leaders start denying objective reality and their followers defend them, people like me who have read a lot about totalitarian societies, and realize that (as Solzhenitsyn said) they can happen anywhere, get nervous. You can mock that all you like, but it’s a bad thing to happen and it’s actually happened in enough places that I think people’s confidence that it couldn’t happen here is misplaced.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  765. 782: If by whopper you mean he violated the 8th Commandment, I disagree.

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  766. And, “analyzing the truth or falsity of Trump’s statement” is a sophomoric exercise of semantics and silly word games.

    Analyzing the reporting habits of the NYT and the agendas of the main stream media in covering Trump concerns a matter of constitutional significance.

    Funny, I think that analyzing the truthfulness of the man who basically embodies the powers set forth in Article II is a matter of constitutional significance, while analyzing the accuracy of media is potentially important (although it can, as here, descend into embarrassing hairsplitting) but not really a constitutional issue.

    All I’m doing is breaking down what Trump actually said. You can pretend that this is some kind of irrelevant exercise, but we’ve spent nearly 800 comments yammering about what he said and I feel like one of the few people here actually looking at what he *said* rather than what Mollie Hemingway or Byron York transmogrifies it into. If analyzing what he *said* is a waste of time, then leave the thread. Because that’s what the thread is about.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  767. BuDuh, 780 is the comment to respond to in our discussion. Sorry for the distractions.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  768. 782: If by whopper you mean he violated the 8th Commandment, I disagree.

    By whopper I mean a lie. Complicating it with connotations from the Bible that I didn’t reference doesn’t help.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  769. And 781, BuDuh.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  770. I’m just a dumb C&E Catholic who slept through CCD. But I meant lie!

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  771. 766

    First of all, they didn’t quote him, but never mind that for now.

    Another “EXACTLY” earned by you.

    They wrote:

    As with so many issues involving this president, the views of his aides often have little effect on what he actually says. On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.

    On Friday, Mr. Trump said, ‘It could even be the 12th.’

    See, the narrative of he article is that Trump doesn’t listen to his staff, and doesn’t understand what’s happening around him.

    This story wasn’t about the status of planning — not at all. How is that revealed??? Simple as two words:

    As with so many issues involving this president, the views of his aides often have little effect on what he actually says. On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible

    The “disconnect” identified by the NYT between Trump and his staff was reflected in the “example” of the points of view expressed by the staffer on the one hand (June 12 is “impossible”), and Trump on the other “It could even be the 12th.”

    When Trump complains by way of Tweet, he’s not denying the existence of a briefer or briefing, he’s denying the existence of a briefer/briefing who stated what the NYT wrote.

    As with so many issues involving this president, the views of his aides often have little effect on what he actually says. On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.

    As a matter of semantics, what words were ACTUALLY spoken by the briefer on Thursday which “told” the reporters that June 11 was “impossible”.

    Funny thing — no other reporters (50+ in the room) wrote stories or did broadcasts saying the WH staff had ruled out a June 12 summit.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  772. When Trump complains by way of Tweet, he’s not denying the existence of a briefer or briefing, he’s denying the existence of a briefer/briefing who stated what the NYT wrote.

    Nope. If you break down what he said, you’ll see that you’re rewriting his statement. Again, you apparently think it’s important enough to discuss what he said to make the inaccurate assertion you just made. So: break it down. Using symbols is the only way I have found to compel people to stick to what he said.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  773. You can mock that all you like, but it’s a bad thing to happen and it’s actually happened in enough places that I think people’s confidence that it couldn’t happen here is misplaced.

    Like that place where a counterintelligence operation was directed against an opposition campaign. I read about that.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  774. C = what NYT claimed B said

    Incorrect. B is a symbol with attribute X.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  775. 781 is premature. Some symbols are still getting redefined. Once we settle on a stable set, I can see if I blew it.

    Right now, the closest Trump’s tweet comes to having a “senior Whitehouse Official that exists” is D.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  776. Where do you and Beldar come out on McCarthy’s column today?

    I continue to agree with Beldar that McCarthy has over-stated the obligation of Rosenstein to make a public statement about the factual scope of the authorized investigation pursuant to the requirements of the regulation.

    But I think Andy is correct that there are real questions about whether a SC can ever be authorized to conduct a counter-intelligence investigation, and whether there was an actual factual predicate for the counter-intelligence investigation that was launched — at the time it was launched, which seems to be getting backed up earlier and earlier on the calendar in 2016. The revelations of the past couple weeks ALL play in the direction of this having been a circumstance where political actors in the Obama DOJ and NatSec establishment used the “ties” between Russian actors and Trump campaign “officials” as an EXCUSE to utilize intrusive counter-intelligence tools against the Trump campaign.

    As Andy points out, the Obama folks’ “fear” of Trump’s potential “alignment” with Russia is quite reminiscent of the Nixon folks’ fear of McGovern’s “soft on communism” foreign policy stances.

    Also, how about that James Clapper assuring everyone that the use of “informants” is the most “benign” form of investigation? That’s a knee slapper, don’t you think?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  777. C = what NYT claimed B said

    Incorrect. B is a symbol with attribute X.

    I was defining C, not B. What is C to you?

    You lay it all out in one place.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  778. C = what NYT claimed D said

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  779. Lay out the whole thing, please?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  780. Q: “And, I put it to you — is “inaccurate paraphrase” a rational justification for what the NYT did, or an oxymoron.”

    A: “No.”

    Lol

    harkin,

    Nice to see you can appreciate a joke.

    (You did get it, right?)

    Patterico (115b1f)

  781. Ok. But let’s agree on something 1st, please.

    I say

    B = senior White House Official who does not exist

    and I believe that there is no way to read Trump’s and be convinced that he ever suggested that

    B = senior White House Official

    It is very clear that “who does not exist” is a qualifier that is inseparable from “senior Whitehouse Official.”

    Do we agree?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  782. Bedtime for me. Thanks for the cordial sparring. I will check back in the AM.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  783. You could rewrite Trump’s tweet as follows and the meaning would be exactly the same:

    The Failing @nytimes quotes “a senior White House official” as saying “even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed ” — that official doesn’t exist because no WH official made such a statement.

    Again, as you pointed out, the NYT didn’t “quote” anyone, so that’s a mistaken use of the word.
    It should have said “cites” the officials as having said…. And the quotation in the tweet should have been clearly delineated as a quote of the Times story, and not a quote of the official by the Times.

    But its a tweet, not an english paper.

    While as a matter of grammar, by placing “who doesn’t exist” in the location he did with the commas, it can be read as excluding from existence the briefer to whom the NYT was referring.

    But, when you add back that Trump qualified the breifer as someone to whom the comment about 6/12 being impossible was attibuted by the Times, his meaning is clear — and its not that the person who gave the briefing is non-existent.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  784. Response to 801: you could symbolize it that way or with the attribute x symbology. Either means the same to me. So when you’re ready give me the whole thing.

    In the end, I think you’ll see that if you pay attention to what he actually wrote, the clear and natural meaning of the words was a (typical for Trump) exaggerated and dramatic false claim that Scott Adams would praise as having some kind of essential emotional truth and that I would denigrate as an attempt to see how many people he could get to agree that the emperor had awesome new clothes.

    Patterico (2184ae)

  785. You could rewrite Trump’s tweet as follows

    You could rewrite it, which you and York and Hemingway have done, but it’s a rewrite and not what he said. The natural meaning, as clarified by the language about phony sources and real people, is exactly what the media said it was. Anything else is spin city.

    Patterico (2184ae)

  786. i get what Mr. Trump was trying to say

    he gets frustrated with how the NYT lies and lies with impunity

    and if he doesn’t call them out the job really doesn’t get done

    and apart from the merits of his argument, the way he communicates to people that he’s engaged and not gonna puss-out like an execrable bush person is refreshing and, I hope, something what becomes an expectation and obligation of R presidents going forward

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  787. 806 — Funny you should mention that rewriting something to make the point more clear is just “spin city”.

    Something like this:

    There is, however, one company that is clearly tied to the IRGC that is curiously not getting sanctioned: Azarpassillo. You’ll never guess what distinguishes this company from the rest. Yup, sure enough, Azarpassillo has done business with the Trump Organization:

    If Trump were to include Azarpassillo on the list of sanctioned companies, it would be an open admission by the administration that the Trump Organization has done business with a company connected to the Revolutionary Guard and money laundering. And Trump’s motto is: no matter how obviously true something is, you don’t admit it if it hurts Donald Trump. Apparently, even if it is in the nation’s security interest.

    I’m frankly at a loss as to how Trump supporters will defend this. The salient facts are beyond dispute. Azarpassillo is run by IRGC officers. The Mammadovs’ connection to the Revolutionary Guard has been publicly known for several years. The Trump Organization’s lawyer “learned of the Mammadov family’s likely relationship to Azarpassillo in the summer of 2015.”

    Which drew this in response in the comments:

    The Trump organization did business with the Mammadov family on the Baku Tower property.

    The Mammadov family, through the Transportation Ministry which it controlled at the time, gave contracts for road construction in Azerbaijan to Azarpassillo. … “Ownership” of Azarpassillo isn’t explained in the article…. The author simply says Azarpassillo is “run by” Keyumars.

    …..

    There is nothing in the article that says Azarpassillos had any involvement with the Trump project in Baku.

    Further down in the same comment:

    Mehrzad Boroujerdi, a political scientist at Syracuse University, who studies the political, economic, and military élite of Iran, said, … “If you see a connection with Khatam Al-Anbia, you would assume the connections to the Revolutionary Guard are there. The suspicion of Azarpassillo being a front company is certainly worth investigating. It would fit a normal pattern.

    So, there’s your first assumption — Azarpassillo, based on the article, has not yet been determined be a Revolutionary Guard front company, though that is a strong suspicion.

    Several more comments followed further teasing out the lack of facts behind the article you had relied upon for your conclusion that Trump failed to sanction the company because his family company did business with them — though they never had.

    Here was your reply:

    U

    PDATE: Commenters point out that I should have been more careful to note in the post that, according to Davidson, the Trump Organization did business, not directly with a company run by the IRGC, but with a corrupt money-laundering partner of a company run by the IRGC. I don’t think this renders Trump’s decision not to sanction Azarpassillo any less suspect. The mileage of Trump partisans may vary and probably does.

    That, sir, is just spin.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  788. Hmmm…had to go back and look at this:

    http://patterico.com/2017/10/24/hmmm-the-curious-reason-trump-did-not-sanction-this-company-run-by-irans-revolutionary-guard/

    Comment 10 was interesting: “The hacks will ignore this or go ad hominem. It’s what a hack does when he has no other argument.”

    But instead what happened was that shippie and happy did a more careful reading even of the source materials for your post and found errors in your post. It wasn’t hack ad hominem. It was getting into the details. And significant enough that you had to write a correction.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  789. “The hacks will ignore this or go ad hominem. It’s what a hack does when he has no other argument.”

    Put that with what I missed earlier:
    Beldar, if any of these people bet and lost they would say the bet doesn’t exist. I would never wager with people so willing to torture the English language. It’s a wonder we continue to talk to such people.

    Discourse. Yes.

    What seems rather prevalent on the NT side of things (not that the other side is immune in reverse) are these predictions of future bad behavior on the part Trump or “Trumpikins”. Once one is vested into such a prediction, it is very, very hard to objectively assess future behaviors by those entities without looking for the tiniest grain that “proves” one was right all along.

    Skorcher (ac561d)

  790. A reported C, that was not said by D. D ≠ B. The remaining choice is E. So, A reported something that was said by E. E = B.

    Rewriting the tweet with that in mind

    The Failing ‪@nytimes‬ quotes phony sources, as saying “even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.” WRONG AGAIN! Use real people, not phony sources.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  791. And significant enough that you had to write a correction.

    True. That’s why he has brought it up in several unrelated threads, I guess. Now we can we get back to this discussion?

    Put into simple English, there is no way to parse what Trump actually said — as opposed to rewrites that change his meaning — to make the existence of the senior US official dependent on the content of his statement. As actually phrased by the actual speaker (Trump), the official’s lack of existence is independent logically from the content of what he said. You can rewrite his sentence to create a new and different sentence in which his existence depends on the nature of his statement. But you can’t reasonably read his actual statement that way.

    I made his point with an example using Comey and wiretapping, I believe in 646 (on a phone and can’t easily check). Not one person, as I recall, addressed that example. If people disdain stripping sentences down to their logical essentials — and several people here defending Trump are showing such a disdain — them grappling with my Comey analogy is a decent second choice.

    Simply repeating your rewrite of Trump’s sentence fails to grapple with what he actually said. The Comey example does. Try that one, if you are interested in an actual interchange and you insist on claiming Trump got this one right.

    Patterico (2184ae)

  792. The Failing ‪@nytimes‬ quotes phony sources, as saying “even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.” WRONG AGAIN! Use real people, not phony sources.

    Something has to represent “senior US official” or you are engaged in a dodge, whether you mean to be or not.

    Patterico (2184ae)

  793. And “who does not exist” has to show up in the rewritten tweet in concept in some form.

    Patterico (2184ae)

  794. Something has to represent “senior US official” or you are engaged in a dodge, whether you mean to be or not.

    And “who does not exist” has to show up in the rewritten tweet in concept in some form.

    This is where I am struggling with your set of symbols.

    If Trump said “a senior Whitehouse Qfficial that doesn’t have blue eyes,” to me, that would be the entirety of symbol B. You keep separating the description.

    “All senior Whitehouse Officials” will include the subset that has blue eyes. Not the other way around.

    I apologize if you have already explained this, but how do you keep separating the unseparable? I can’t figure that out.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  795. BuDuh,

    Leave together anything you think should be, and reduce it to symbols, quoting Trump’s tweet and setting forth the whole translation in its entirety. The whole exercise is premised on the notion that you think I did it wrong. So you do it right and we’ll look at the results.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  796. 810:

    I get same impression. But the NT’s are sensitive so not sure a global critical observation will go down well. 😉

    Kind of learning this whole thing after so long out of following politics. Feel like I got back on a spaceship and just found the Statue of Liberty sticking out of the beach.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  797. #1: A quotes “a senior White House official,” who doesn’t exist, as saying C

    Is not the same as saying:

    #2: A quotes a senior White House official as saying C, but no “senior White House official who said C” exists.

    This is the essence of the issue, and you can play with the symbols all day long but you will never find a way to logically equate those two sentences. They say different things.

    The key here is that in #2, the existence of the official depends on his having said C. But in #1, AS IT IS PHRASED, there is no such interdependence expressed by the speaker. He is simply saying the official does not exist, independent of what he goes on to say about C.

    That’s as clear as I can say it. THIS is now the comment to respond to.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  798. I did reduce it to the symbols and we disagree on B. I want to resolve that. I think, at this point, you must consider that I am being as honest as the day is long and nothing I have written comes off as a dodge.

    I believe this dialog has truly narrowed down where the two sides differ on the “structure of his sentences.”

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  799. Say the whole thing again in one place.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  800. I agree that you are not trying to dodge anything, but the way you did it just now is a functional and unintentional dodge because you left out senior US official and does not exist, and those concepts are at the center of the issue.

    Make it simpler and respond to 818. You must equate those sentences logically and symbolically to show you’re right.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  801. Sorry, I was typing while you posted. I think we are on the same page. I have to run my kids to school. I will rethink this and have a look later.

    Thank you.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  802. By same page, I’m not suggesting that I agree with you. :-) Just that the heart of the problem we both see from different viewpoints.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  803. But its a tweet, not an english paper.

    This must be why Trump tweets: No rules!

    DRJ (15874d)

  804. 817: I’ve been dinged for being more interested in Beldar’s “distracting” bet than the subject matter, but this whole thing seems absurdly silly thing to argue about and at least a bet is determined (hopefully) on a discrete thing that either will happen or will not happen.

    That said, if I were to dive into this I would (starting from square one) ask this specific question as a basis:

    Did anyone in the WH, in the context of this exchange between NYT and WH, say “holding it on June 12 would be impossible”? These words were either said or not said. If they were not said, if the word “impossible” was not used, argument ends right there. AIUI, there is no person who said this thing. Thus ThePersonWhoSaidThisThing does not exist.

    Skorcher (ac561d)

  805. You should talk to Trump about being as clear as you are trying to be, Skorcher.

    DRJ (15874d)

  806. FWIW, I have the impression that Trump did not know the briefing was done. E.g. he made the comment about “use real names” when media was told to cite senior WH official. (Of course this could be that he knew a briefing was done but not the details. But overall, if he knew briefing was done, would more likely have said improper summary…after God help him checking on that before tweeting.)

    All that said, I think his major point was that “impossible” was not communicated and in this he is correct. [He is also literally correct in that there was not an-offical-who-said-impossible.]

    I think he was reacting to the incorrect communication from NYT and in this he is right. WH never put out impossible. Bottom line.

    If anything, I think the “a briefer existed” is the distracting and evasive stance. but then the NTs tend to roll that way…while accusing us of the opposite.

    And the funny thing is I am not even a Trumper. Wanted Rand Paul.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  807. Did anyone in the WH, in the context of this exchange between NYT and WH, say “holding it on June 12 would be impossible”? These words were either said or not said. If they were not said, if the word “impossible” was not used, argument ends right there. AIUI, there is no person who said this thing. Thus ThePersonWhoSaidThisThing does not exist.

    They did not say exactly that, and thus you are correct to say a hypothetical ThePersonWhoSaidThisThing does not exist. But look at my 818. Trump said #1. And #1 does not convey ThePersonWhoSaidThisThing as a concept. It conveys the person, denies their existence, and then goes on to describe what the NYT said this person said. It does not make the existence of the person dependent on their having said the thing.

    That is the logical flaw in your premise.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  808. And teh Spilt Milk Chronicles continueszzzzzzzzzz

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  809. If I said: “A witness described the Abominable Snowman, who does not exist, as being seven feet tall,” you would not read that as an assertion that my denial of the Snowman’s existence depends on his height.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  810. 827: Yes, and is this not typical of lawyers. A simple thing, something was said or not said. Square one. and 800+ comments later, it is still being argued. But then they do charge by the hour. I think you indicated you were a SW guy or engineer? Belaboring such a point would get one ostracized in an objective, need to get stuff done world.

    Skorcher (ac561d)

  811. 828: Huh?

    Unless you think Trump is claiming there are no senior WH officials in existence at ALL (like in the Universe!), I don’t see how you can get away from THEPERSONWHOSAIDTHAT.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  812. 831… F-in’ A!

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  813. 830: See 832. I guess you are!

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  814. Trump said #1. And #1 does not convey ThePersonWhoSaidThisThing as a concept.

    This is a meaningless distraction. There is no person in the WH who used the word “impossible” to describe the potentiality of June 12 meeting. Simple. If this were a computer program, that would be the very first edit to be done on the inputs and the routine would have exited. No need to process other input as it is irrelevant.

    Skorcher (ac561d)

  815. If Obama had said: “National Review says the gender pay gap in my administration, which does not exist, has women making 90 cents for every dollar men make. That is wrong! Stop making up phony concepts!” And it turned out that women made 91 cents in his administration for every dollar men made, you would not say that he was correct to assert that the pay gap “does not exist” simply because the actual pay gap is different than as represented by National Review.

    And if Obama said: “All I was saying was that no gender pay gap of 90 cents exists” you would call bullshit.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  816. 831. I owe a proposal actually. Such a procrastinator.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  817. Ready the time capsule… this thread will leave whoever digs it up either speechless or in fits of laughing incontinence, take your pick.

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  818. 836: You are continuing your Abominal Snowman logical fallacy. Trump did not deny the existence of any WH senior officials in Christendom. He denied THEPERSONWHOSAIDTHAT.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  819. If I said: “A witness described the Abominable Snowman, who does not exist, as being seven feet tall,” you would not read that as an assertion that my denial of the Snowman’s existence depends on his height.

    This is really sad logic. No, I don’t think it is reasonable to say that the existence depends on the height. The assertion of a witness as to the height of a snowman does not have any bearing on whether one exists or not. Witness might believe that, witness might be on LSD for all we know. But then I’m not a big fan of singular eyewitness testimony. Got me tossed out of a jury pool once.

    Skorcher (ac561d)

  820. Analogies are for lawyers, Patterico. Typical lawyer arguments.

    DRJ (15874d)

  821. It seems to me that the substance of Pottinger’s briefing conveyed the idea that the summit won’t happen and that it was impossible. If that isn’t true, then he wasn’t a good choice of person to do the briefing because he sent the wrong message. Or it could be that Trump does not have a good Asia team.

    My guess is that Pottinger was right and there isn’t enough time to finalize the summit according to reasonable standards. I also think we keep arguing about it here because some people who aren’t lawyers like to argue as much as lawyers. Pot, Kettle.

    DRJ (15874d)

  822. This is really sad logic. No, I don’t think it is reasonable to say that the existence depends on the height.

    It’s really sad logic yet you seem to agree.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  823. Its

    seems to me that the substance of Pottinger’s briefing conveyed the idea that the summit won’t happen and that it was impossible.

    Then there must be a whole host of other news outlets, who were in the briefing, that reported it that way.

    Let me guess at what happens next. This is the part where you tell me it isn’t your job to do my research.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  824. Pat, I see there are more analogies you have created in my absence. At the moment I have a full card of other stuff to do. I will think about this today and respond this evening.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  825. 842: He definitely did not say the summit would not happen (at all).

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  826. Unless you think Trump is claiming there are no senior WH officials in existence at ALL (like in the Universe!), I don’t see how you can get away from THEPERSONWHOSAIDTHAT

    He said #1 and not #2. He is not denying the existence of all briefers, but rather he is saying that the NYT made up this one source out of whole cloth.

    Patterico (2184ae)

  827. Anonymous wrote (#827):

    And the funny thing is I am not even a Trumper. Wanted Rand Paul.

    This explains a lot. Rand Paul is a particular kind of crazy, as was his dad.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  828. BuDuh,

    I have a new post that ties together my more important examples and comments so that they can be distinguished from the leas important ones. I recommend moving the discussion to the new thread, because as much as I would like to get to 1000 comments, the page is becoming difficult to load.

    Patterico (2184ae)

  829. It’s really sad logic yet you seem to agree.

    Between the “not” logic, etc. I’m not sure what it is you are trying to say. I originally read that as a question. What is your point? Why convolute things with a crappy analogy. As you admitted:

    you are correct to say a hypothetical ThePersonWhoSaidThisThing does not exist

    That’s all there is here. No one said that the meeting was “impossible”. You are belaboring this issue, grasping at straws to save your mocking of Trump for saying no such person who said such a thing exists. It’s that simple. No snowman, or strawman for that matter, needed.

    Skorcher (ac561d)

  830. Ok. See you there later today.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  831. Then there must be a whole host of other news outlets, who were in the briefing, that reported it that way.

    I don’t know. Is that how we decide who to believe now, based on the uniformity of reporting? I based my opinion on reading the transcript of what was said. (In any event, I think the Hill did.

    Let me guess at what happens next. This is the part where you tell me it isn’t your job to do my research.

    BuDuh (fc15db) — 5/30/2018 @ 8:29 am

    Is this sarcasm or are you back to being spiteful?

    DRJ (15874d)

  832. Anonymous wrote (#827):

    And the funny thing is I am not even a Trumper. Wanted Rand Paul.

    This explains a lot. Rand Paul is a particular kind of crazy, as was his dad.

    Remind me again, ad hominems…in or out? ‘Cause I really hate spelling out “hominem”.

    Skorcher (ac561d)

  833. I like Rand Paul. I liked Ron, too. I’m not on the same page on all issues but they speak their minds.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  834. 812- you DID NOT write a correction.

    You wrote that even if you were wrong on the specifics, you were still right as a general matter – which was not true either.

    The article you trumpeted for the offensive claim that Trump failed to carry out some act as part of US policy because he did business with an Iran Republican Guard front company was a baseless hit piece, and you never acknowledged that as a fact. You even finished up with your last comment by repeating the scurrilous and unsupported allegation from the article that the companies were engaged in money laundering even though I had gone thru the allegations in the article and pointed out that there were NO facts alleged in that regard, just the naked claim of the biased author who had written other Trump hit pieces.

    Your refusal to acknowledge your error in your exhuberance to embrace the author’s baseless claims is why I have gone back to it a few times. It’s emblematic of a mindset.

    Shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  835. Ad hominem means “to the person,” Skorcher. It refers to an argument that is directed at a person, rather than at an idea or issue.

    In the context of conversations like we’re having here, though, when we’re discussing public figures who are not participating in our conversation, we often have occasion to discuss those public figures’ personal characteristics, including their truthworthiness and wisdom. In that case, a criticism directed “to the person” is appropriate.

    When swc accused Patterico of being in bed with the media deniers, he converted a series of arguments about Trump, his tweet, his WH adviser Pottinger, and the NYT into an argument about Patterico.

    I don’t think he realized he was doing it; I think he’s too passionate about his arguments to notice that he’s shifted from attacking abstract propositions to attacking other people writing here.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  836. @ DRJ: I like some things about both father and son. I’d never cast a vote for either of them for anything, though, and I think they’re both spectacularly ineffective at anything but distractions and obstruction. I’m glad a Democrat doesn’t hold Rand Paul’s senate seat, but I’d rather it were held by a workhorse instead of a grandstander.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  837. Yeah, keep on a poking fun at Californy there, Republicans!

    California Republicans hit rock bottom
    New figures show the once-proud state GOP has been relegated to third party status.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/30/california-republicans-third-party-status-613568

    Tillman (a95660)

  838. Apparently, the Democrats must be allowed to burn California down to ashes before there’s any hope of making things better by taking a new direction.

    Colonel Haiku (e208fd)

  839. Haiku, I can agree for a change, sort of. Somewhere between the extreme left that’s found in California and the extreme right that’s found in the likes of Mississippi, lies sanity.

    Tillman (a95660)

  840. New figures show the once-proud state GOP has been relegated to third party status.

    What’s the second party?

    Apparently independents

    The Califoria Louisiana style “jungle primary” allows for non-Republican non-Democrats to take one of the top two spos but it’s not happening.

    There are a few problems:

    1. The Republican Party is still too strong.

    2. Campaign finance restrictions get in the way of independent campaigns.

    3. The general election is still limited to the top two finishers, even if the total percenbtage of the vote gotten by the top two is well under 50% – maybe not even 40%

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.7186 secs.