The CardBoard
Transition funds - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Transition funds (/thread-20863.html)

Pages: 1 2

Transition funds - lex24 - 11-13-2020

There has been a lot said in this time of Covid about how important it is to release the transition funds. And to have Biden be involved in the daily presidential briefings. What’s been interesting, however, is the general lack of discussion  for the media on the precedent.  That stems from 2000.  I was curious so I began googling for articles. I found one on NPR. It mentioned that the Clinton administration allowed bush to take part of the daily briefings before he was declared the winner – but did not say win in the process that occurred. The other article I read was in market watch. That article indicated that the Clinton administration did not release the transition funds until the day after Bush was declared the winner.

 I was curious so I began googling for articles. I found one on NPR. It mentioned that the Clinton administration allowed Bush to take part of the daily briefings before he was declared the winner but did not say win in the process that occurred. The other article I read was in market watch. That article indicated that the Clinton administration did not release the transition funds until the day after Bush was declared the winner. 

I agree the funds  should be released sooner rather than later and that Biden should be involved immediately in the briefings. Nonetheless I also believe that when discussing this the media has some responsibility to at least point out that the action Trump is taking at this time are not unprecedented. But to expect that from what is largely ( almost exclusively) an agenda driven media is, I guess, too much to ask. And yes this is Covid related because part of this whole issue has to do with Covid

RE: Transition funds - DocSavage87 - 11-13-2020

(11-13-2020, 10:17 AM)lex24 Wrote:  There has been a lot said in this time of Covid about how important it is to release the transition funds. And to have Biden be involved in the daily presidential briefings. What’s been interesting, however, is the general lack of discussion  for the media on the precedent.  That stems from 2000.  I was curious so I began googling for articles. I found one on NPR. It mentioned that the Clinton administration allowed bush to take part of the daily briefings before he was declared the winner – but did not say win in the process that occurred. The other article I read was in market watch. That article indicated that the Clinton administration did not release the transition funds until the day after Bush was declared the winner.

 I was curious so I began googling for articles. I found one on NPR. It mentioned that the Clinton administration allowed Bush to take part of the daily briefings before he was declared the winner but did not say win in the process that occurred. The other article I read was in market watch. That article indicated that the Clinton administration did not release the transition funds until the day after Bush was declared the winner. 

I agree the funds  should be released sooner rather than later and that Biden should be involved immediately in the briefings. Nonetheless I also believe that when discussing this the media has some responsibility to at least point out that the action Trump is taking at this time are not unprecedented. But to expect that from what is largely ( almost exclusively) an agenda driven media is, I guess, too much to ask. And yes this is Covid related because part of this whole issue has to do with Covid

Since you are so concerned that everyone cover this situation with the utmost fairness, perhaps you should also point out that the 2000 election was no 2020 election.  Even the Republican lawyer who lead the legal strategy for Bush in the 2000 FL recount says there's no comparison.  We also have the GOP lawyers saying one thing in court (and having no evidence of widespread fraud), and the GOP saying something entirely different on the social media.  I get tired of people making arguments that Trump just needs more time.  He needed zero time to claim he won and the election is a fraud, despite no reasonable evidence being shown in court.  That's another reason it's different than 2000.  It's not just an Administration saying things aren't decided because it's so close.  It's an Administration saying it was maliciously stolen due to fraud and that's what has to be checked out -- and they're only saying that in the media, because they don't dare say that in court or they'll be tossed out on their butt like has been the case already.

RE: Transition funds - BostonCard - 11-13-2020

Not sure that 2000 is the right standard to use, since back then there was legitimate uncertainty over who the next president would be.  Should Clinton have given transition funds to both Bush and Gore?

The uncertainty in this election is comparable to the uncertainty in 2016.  Biden is on track to win the exact same number of electoral votes as Trump won in 2016.  In order to change the results, Trump would have to flip three of the contested states (which is how many states Hillary would have had to flip to become president).  The margin (as it stands now) in terms of votes is:

Arizona: 11,434
Georgia: 14,150
Wisconsin: 20,546
(note this would bring Biden back to 269 electoral votes, so it would be an EC tie)

The margins are comparable to the closest states in 2016:
Michigan: 10,704
Wisconsin: 22,748
Pennsylvania: 44,292

Trump was given transition funding in 2016 and given presidential briefings.  He was invited to meet with Obama on November 10th, two days after the election.  A short delay this year, while not optimal, was ok, given that Biden hadn't become the projected winner until Saturday.  But Biden won the Presidential election, and pretending like the outcome is still in doubt is, as Biden would put it, malarkey.  The funds should be released and Biden should be briefed.  If Trump wants to continue to challenge the results in court, I think it's unhealthy, but he is within his rights.  But that shouldn't interfere with planning for a smooth transition, which is going to be challenging enough under the current pandemic, and will impair our response.

BC

lex24 - lex24 - 11-13-2020

(11-13-2020, 12:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Not sure that 2000 is the right standard to use, since back then there was legitimate uncertainty over who the next president would be.  Should Clinton have given transition funds to both Bush and Gore?

The uncertainty in this election is comparable to the uncertainty in 2016.  Biden is on track to win the exact same number of electoral votes as Trump won in 2016.  In order to change the results, Trump would have to flip three of the contested states (which is how many states Hillary would have had to flip to become president).  The margin (as it stands now) in terms of votes is:

Arizona: 11,434
Georgia: 14,150
Wisconsin: 20,546
(note this would bring Biden back to 269 electoral votes, so it would be an EC tie)

The margins are comparable to the closest states in 2016:
Michigan: 10,704
Wisconsin: 22,748
Pennsylvania: 44,292

Trump was given transition funding in 2016 and given presidential briefings.  He was invited to meet with Obama on November 10th, two days after the election.  A short delay this year, while not optimal, was ok, given that Biden hadn't become the projected winner until Saturday.  But Biden won the Presidential election, and pretending like the outcome is still in doubt is, as Biden would put it, malarkey.  The funds should be released and Biden should be briefed.  If Trump wants to continue to challenge the results in court, I think it's unhealthy, but he is within his rights.  But that shouldn't interfere with planning for a smooth transition, which is going to be challenging enough under the current pandemic, and will impair our response.

BC

Gore was in the Admin.

 I said the funds should be released.  And that he should be in the briefings.

Further, I wasn’t commenting on the “challenge”. Which will go nowhere ( even if he may have a decent legal argument in Penn (that won’t involve enough votes to matter)

I just want the media to do its job and provide background.  2000 is the only challenge.  So it’s at least an example.
(11-13-2020, 12:03 PM)DocSavage87 Wrote:  
(11-13-2020, 10:17 AM)lex24 Wrote:  There has been a lot said in this time of Covid about how important it is to release the transition funds. And to have Biden be involved in the daily presidential briefings. What’s been interesting, however, is the general lack of discussion  for the media on the precedent.  That stems from 2000.  I was curious so I began googling for articles. I found one on NPR. It mentioned that the Clinton administration allowed bush to take part of the daily briefings before he was declared the winner – but did not say win in the process that occurred. The other article I read was in market watch. That article indicated that the Clinton administration did not release the transition funds until the day after Bush was declared the winner.

 I was curious so I began googling for articles. I found one on NPR. It mentioned that the Clinton administration allowed Bush to take part of the daily briefings before he was declared the winner but did not say win in the process that occurred. The other article I read was in market watch. That article indicated that the Clinton administration did not release the transition funds until the day after Bush was declared the winner. 

I agree the funds  should be released sooner rather than later and that Biden should be involved immediately in the briefings. Nonetheless I also believe that when discussing this the media has some responsibility to at least point out that the action Trump is taking at this time are not unprecedented. But to expect that from what is largely ( almost exclusively) an agenda driven media is, I guess, too much to ask. And yes this is Covid related because part of this whole issue has to do with Covid

Since you are so concerned that everyone cover this situation with the utmost fairness, perhaps you should also point out that the 2000 election was no 2020 election.  Even the Republican lawyer who lead the legal strategy for Bush in the 2000 FL recount says there's no comparison.  We also have the GOP lawyers saying one thing in court (and having no evidence of widespread fraud), and the GOP saying something entirely different on the social media.  I get tired of people making arguments that Trump just needs more time.  He needed zero time to claim he won and the election is a fraud, despite no reasonable evidence being shown in court.  That's another reason it's different than 2000.  It's not just an Administration saying things aren't decided because it's so close.  It's an Administration saying it was maliciously stolen due to fraud and that's what has to be checked out -- and they're only saying that in the media, because they don't dare say that in court or they'll be tossed out on their butt like has been the case already.

Read my post.  I wasn’t comparing the legitimacy of the challenge to 2000. ( And the media HAS covered that. As they should). 

I just used it as the only example we have in which there was an actual challenge and how it was handled. Further, I never said there was a comparison between the two. If you wanna know my opinion I’ll give it to you straight up - I think the challenges are absurd. I also think Mitt Romney had it right – any president has a legal right to challenge. What he shouldn’t be doing is making dangerous and unfounded comments about fraud etc. 

The challenges will go nowhere the election will be  certified and Biden will be president. Again to be clear - Biden should be given the transition funds now I agree with that. Biden  should be getting the briefings. Now. We agree on that. 

I just want the media to do it’s job. One of the reasons Trump is president is a very strong belief among conservatives of massive media bias. Which is why he was so easily able to argue the “fake news” garbage. And I get that people roll their eyes when the media bias card is raised. But the fact is a large portion of the country believes it. Now you can ignore that fine.  And of course you can point out there’s always Fox. . Which as I’ve said a million times is also biased.  I guess I simply want some thing that we can’t have anymore. That’s an MSM that distinguishes reporting from opinion.  That is not agenda driven.

RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 11-13-2020

(11-13-2020, 12:12 PM)lex24 Wrote:  Gore was in the Admin.

There was a transition from Reagan to Bush, even though the latter was in the administration.  And (perhaps surprisingly) it was a bit of a rocky transition.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/first-impressions-a-look-back-at-five-presidential-transitions/

Regardless of whether they are in the administration or out, the incoming president is going to want to put their own stamp on the administration.  That means selecting their own cabinet members, and though that is easier done when you can allow some cabinet members to continue in their position, and will want to ensure a seamless handover to the new guys.

In any case, in 2000 the outcome was legitimately in doubt until the USSC handed down the decision in Bush v. Gore and the counting stopped in Florida, at which point Bush was declared president-elect and started the transition process.  In 2020, the election was in doubt until Biden's lead in Pennsylvania cleared 0.5% (the threshold for a recount) and he was declared the winner and cleared the 270 votes.  On Saturday, he should have been acknowledged as President-elect, and the transition process should have started Monday.  2020 is not a precedent.

BC

lex24 - lex24 - 11-13-2020

(11-13-2020, 12:27 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(11-13-2020, 12:12 PM)lex24 Wrote:  Gore was in the Admin.

There was a transition from Reagan to Bush, even though the latter was in the administration.  And (perhaps surprisingly) it was a bit of a rocky transition.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/first-impressions-a-look-back-at-five-presidential-transitions/

Regardless of whether they are in the administration or out, the incoming president is going to want to put their own stamp on the administration.  That means selecting their own cabinet members, and though that is easier done when you can allow some cabinet members to continue in their position, and will want to ensure a seamless handover to the new guys.

In any case, in 2000 the outcome was legitimately in doubt until the USSC handed down the decision in Bush v. Gore and the counting stopped in Florida, at which point Bush was declared president-elect and started the transition process.  In 2020, the election was in doubt until Biden's lead in Pennsylvania cleared 0.5% (the threshold for a recount) and he was declared the winner and cleared the 270 votes.  On Saturday, he should have been acknowledged as President-elect, and the transition process should have started Monday.  2020 is not a precedent.

BC

Agree on the “shoulds”.  Don’t see how that impacts the media bringing up what occurred in the only other election we’ve had where there was a legal challenge.  Weak as it it is.
(11-13-2020, 12:33 PM)lex24 Wrote:  
(11-13-2020, 12:27 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(11-13-2020, 12:12 PM)lex24 Wrote:  Gore was in the Admin.

There was a transition from Reagan to Bush, even though the latter was in the administration.  And (perhaps surprisingly) it was a bit of a rocky transition.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/first-impressions-a-look-back-at-five-presidential-transitions/

Regardless of whether they are in the administration or out, the incoming president is going to want to put their own stamp on the administration.  That means selecting their own cabinet members, and though that is easier done when you can allow some cabinet members to continue in their position, and will want to ensure a seamless handover to the new guys.

In any case, in 2000 the outcome was legitimately in doubt until the USSC handed down the decision in Bush v. Gore and the counting stopped in Florida, at which point Bush was declared president-elect and started the transition process.  In 2020, the election was in doubt until Biden's lead in Pennsylvania cleared 0.5% (the threshold for a recount) and he was declared the winner and cleared the 270 votes.  On Saturday, he should have been acknowledged as President-elect, and the transition process should have started Monday.  2020 is not a precedent.

BC

Agree on the “shoulds”.   Maybe I’m not clear enough so let me put it more bluntly in fact I’ll scream it  The transition funds should be released and Biden should be getting the briefings now. There is that clear enough? 

Don’t see how that impacts the media bringing up what occurred in the only other election we’ve had where there was a legal challenge.  Weak as it it is.


RE: Transition funds - 2006alum - 11-13-2020

Too many smart folks around here to fall for whataboutisms, Lex.

RE: Transition funds - M T - 11-13-2020

Terry Rule applies here.

Other than a protestation claiming this is about COVID, this is clearly not.

Let's TRY to keep this board on topic and not about whatever political thing seems important to you.

lex24 - lex24 - 11-13-2020

(11-13-2020, 12:49 PM)2006alum Wrote:  Too many smart folks around here to fall for whataboutisms, Lex.
No clue what you mean.  Guess that makes me one of the boards dumb folks.

RE: lex24 - DocSavage87 - 11-15-2020

(11-13-2020, 12:12 PM)lex24 Wrote:  I just want the media to do it’s job. One of the reasons Trump is president is a very strong belief among conservatives of massive media bias. Which is why he was so easily able to argue the “fake news” garbage. And I get that people roll their eyes when the media bias card is raised. But the fact is a large portion of the country believes it.

I saw a poll where 40% of the people believe Trump over Fauci on matters involving COVID-19.  They will believe anything. So there's no point in pretending simple reporting of Trump actions won't be interpreted as negative.  After Trump says repeatedly that COVID-19 will go away and we're turning the corner, if the media reports the massive surge we're having now, they'll interpret it as trying to undermine him.  Trump even suggested as much, saying that after the election the MSM will not be talking about COVID-19 any more.

RE: lex24 - 2006alum - 11-15-2020

(11-15-2020, 07:05 PM)DocSavage87 Wrote:   Trump even suggested as much, saying that after the election the MSM will not be talking about COVID-19 any more.

I think that part is the funniest, because if anything it's been the opposite - now that the election is not a 24/7 four-alarm fire, we're realizing the absolute worst part of the pandemic has been hitting (pretty much exactly as people predicted way back in April), and now it's resuming its place on the top fold of A1.

One interesting story I read today was the observation that FDR in 1932 expressly stayed quiet for the (then) 5 months between his election and inauguration so that Hoover and not FDR would "own" the worsening conditions until FDR assumed the presidency. The author was saying that both Obama in 2008 (with the financial crisis) and Biden in 2020 (with the pandemic) have done the opposite - started to take on spiritual leadership and responsibility even while they don't yet have power. To that end, Biden's team is meeting with the vaccine researchers this week, which I think is really smart.

And one thing I find so funny in this forum is how much certain folks like to speak "on behalf of" Trump supporters rather than speak on behalf of themselves. If you think the MSM is biased, say it. If you resent being told to wear a mask, tell us. I find the canard of "some people think" endlessly tiresome. Make your claim, provide the data to back it up, and let others decide for themselves.

RE: lex24 - oregontim - 11-15-2020

(11-13-2020, 12:12 PM)lex24 Wrote:  I just want the media to do it’s job. One of the reasons Trump is president is a very strong belief among conservatives of massive media bias. Which is why he was so easily able to argue the “fake news” garbage. And I get that people roll their eyes when the media bias card is raised. But the fact is a large portion of the country believes it.


This seems to me like saying that after four years of ... that the target audience's belief of media bias is proof of media bias.

I'd call it proof that the propaganda tactics, targeted at the ignorant, have worked. And the country the demagogue was charged with leading has suffered great loss because of it. It's not just loss of faith in a free press, but also faith in our constitution and the institutions, in democracy itself, and, that too, faith in what leading experts tell us about Covid and how to fight it.

RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 11-15-2020

(11-15-2020, 07:59 PM)2006alum Wrote:  
(11-15-2020, 07:05 PM)DocSavage87 Wrote:   Trump even suggested as much, saying that after the election the MSM will not be talking about COVID-19 any more.

I think that part is the funniest, because if anything it's been the opposite - now that the election is not a 24/7 four-alarm fire, we're realizing the absolute worst part of the pandemic has been hitting (pretty much exactly as people predicted way back in April), and now it's resuming its place on the top fold of A1.

One interesting story I read today was the observation that FDR in 1932 expressly stayed quiet for the (then) 5 months between his election and inauguration so that Hoover and not FDR would "own" the worsening conditions until FDR assumed the presidency. The author was saying that both Obama in 2008 (with the financial crisis) and Biden in 2020 (with the pandemic) have done the opposite - started to take on spiritual leadership and responsibility even while they don't yet have power. To that end, Biden's team is meeting with the vaccine researchers this week, which I think is really smart.

And one thing I find so funny in this forum is how much certain folks like to speak "on behalf of" Trump supporters rather than speak on behalf of themselves. If you think the MSM is biased, say it. If you resent being told to wear a mask, tell us. I find the canard of "some people think" endlessly tiresome. Make your claim, provide the data to back it up, and let others decide for themselves.

I know this is hard for you to believe, but there are lots of people out there (many of them rather sharp by objective measures) who believe (i) Covid is serious, (ii) reasonable safety precautions - most obviously wearing masks indoors - should be followed universally, and (iii) the MSM has had it out for Trump since the day he inexplicably won the election.  And btw, that is true independent of the belief that Trump has clustered the federal response to Covid to a fare thee well (and that most all of the MSM critique of that is legit).

But now that Trump is gone, mission accomplished by MSM.  So hopefully, the media can return to reporting news without an agenda.  I expect that (or certainly expect reporting without such an obvious political bias).

RE: lex24 - Snorlax94 - 11-15-2020

T
(11-15-2020, 09:20 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(11-15-2020, 07:59 PM)2006alum Wrote:  
(11-15-2020, 07:05 PM)DocSavage87 Wrote:   Trump even suggested as much, saying that after the election the MSM will not be talking about COVID-19 any more.

I think that part is the funniest, because if anything it's been the opposite - now that the election is not a 24/7 four-alarm fire, we're realizing the absolute worst part of the pandemic has been hitting (pretty much exactly as people predicted way back in April), and now it's resuming its place on the top fold of A1.

One interesting story I read today was the observation that FDR in 1932 expressly stayed quiet for the (then) 5 months between his election and inauguration so that Hoover and not FDR would "own" the worsening conditions until FDR assumed the presidency. The author was saying that both Obama in 2008 (with the financial crisis) and Biden in 2020 (with the pandemic) have done the opposite - started to take on spiritual leadership and responsibility even while they don't yet have power. To that end, Biden's team is meeting with the vaccine researchers this week, which I think is really smart.

And one thing I find so funny in this forum is how much certain folks like to speak "on behalf of" Trump supporters rather than speak on behalf of themselves. If you think the MSM is biased, say it. If you resent being told to wear a mask, tell us. I find the canard of "some people think" endlessly tiresome. Make your claim, provide the data to back it up, and let others decide for themselves.

I know this is hard for you to believe, but there are lots of people out there (many of them rather sharp by objective measures) who believe (i) Covid is serious, (ii) reasonable safety precautions - most obviously wearing masks indoors - should be followed universally, and (iii) the MSM has had it out for Trump since the day he inexplicably won the election.  And btw, that is true independent of the belief that Trump has clustered the federal response to Covid to a fare thee well (and that most all of the MSM critique of that is legit).

But now that Trump is gone, mission accomplished by MSM.  So hopefully, the media can return to reporting news without an agenda.  I expect that (or certainly expect reporting without such an obvious political bias).

Yes, yes, yes. I have heard all about the long history of all these institutions — like the judges, court system, FBI, Republican primaries, bankruptcy courts, media — even fox news and the Emmys — have been “rigged” against Trump going back many, many years.

Now can we talk about reality like tens of thousands of Americans who are dying and a dangerous lack of transition that could kill even more Americans and seriously harm the country’s foreign policy?

https://youtu.be/oZf7IASx2mE

RE: lex24 - 82 Card - 11-15-2020

(11-15-2020, 08:41 PM)oregontim Wrote:  
(11-13-2020, 12:12 PM)lex24 Wrote:  I just want the media to do it’s job. One of the reasons Trump is president is a very strong belief among conservatives of massive media bias. Which is why he was so easily able to argue the “fake news” garbage. And I get that people roll their eyes when the media bias card is raised. But the fact is a large portion of the country believes it.


This seems to me like saying that after four years of ...
  • a would-be demagogue spewing venom against the media, claiming fake news and bias,
  • echoed by a cable news network,
  • a web of sympathetic radio commentators,
  • and the alt-right chorus of Breitbarts etc., ...
that the target audience's belief of media bias is proof of media bias.



I'd call it proof that the propaganda tactics, targeted at the ignorant, have worked. And the country the demagogue was charged with leading has suffered great loss because of it. It's not just loss of faith in a free press, but also faith in our constitution and the institutions, in democracy itself, and, that too, faith in what leading experts tell us about Covid and how to fight it.

The propaganda campaign goes back way further than four years. I cannot remember a time before the campaign. It was going strong in the 60's. Back then, the incessant whine was often accompanied by commentary on the religion of the owners of the media channels or the reporters. Come to thing of it, that hasn't really changed.

In large parts of the country, mainstream media is run by the likes of Clear Channel and Media News Group (aka Digital First Media). These are right wing companies pushing right wing nonsense. If thee is a mainstream media agenda, it's way to the right.

thatboy - thatboy - 11-16-2020

(11-15-2020, 11:47 PM)82 Card Wrote:  In large parts of the country, mainstream media is run by the likes of Clear Channel and Media News Group (aka Digital First Media). These are right wing companies pushing right wing nonsense. If thee is a mainstream media agenda, it's way to the right.

It should be pretty obvious from the last couple elections that the influence of the “MSM” is an anachronistic concept. Trumps twitter feed is far more influential than anything some wag at the NYT says. I am certain more people get their information these days from social media, echo chambers, viral news stories (and disinformation), and memes on Twitter than they do from Don Lemon on CNN or some no name at the Washington Post. And on the right they also get info from an army of right wing personalities that dwarf Rachel Maddow: Hannity, Tucker, Ben Shapiro, Limbaugh, Prager, GlennBeck, Hugh Hewitt, Alex Jones, Kilmeade, etc., etc., etc. 

And to some degree it’s asymmetric warfare. The MSM is still held to some standard of being fair and somehow a disinterested party. They are not, of course, but the right still holds them to that standard and they themselves try to play the part to some extent. Meanwhile on the right there is no pretense. There is no fig leaf of objectivity or fairness.

Long gone are the days when Cronkite told us that’s the way it is. Even the heydays of CNN are ancient history. Media is polarized on both sides, but somehow the “MSM” is always shamed for being biased while the right wing media gets a free pass even though it’s influence is now broader than traditional media.

RE: lex24 - 2006alum - 11-16-2020

(11-15-2020, 09:20 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  I know this is hard for you to believe, but there are lots of people out there (many of them rather sharp by objective measures) who believe (i) Covid is serious, (ii) reasonable safety precautions - most obviously wearing masks indoors - should be followed universally, and (iii) the MSM has had it out for Trump since the day he inexplicably won the election.  And btw, that is true independent of the belief that Trump has clustered the federal response to Covid to a fare thee well (and that most all of the MSM critique of that is legit).
 

There it is again: "there are lots of people who think...." It's a claim to the authority of the crowd without being sourced to any rigorous, evidence-backed data suggesting that that is in fact what the crowd thinks. And more to the point, I'm not on this forum to find out what the crowd thinks -- if I did, I'd be on Pew's website, or Gallup's, but not here. I'm in this forum talk to you, so what do you think? Do you think the MSM has had it out for Trump since day one? Do you think reasonable safety precautions should be the limit for COVID containment? Do you think certain governors have gone too far? If so, say that. If not, then let the unnamed crowd speak for itself. (Or at least give me some poll results indicating what they think.) 

I just find this reflexive rhetorical move bemusing, because it keeps happening with people who want to present heterodox views vis-a-vis others on this board, but kinda-sorta don't want to stand behind their statements themselves.

RE: Transition funds - DocSavage87 - 11-16-2020

For the longest time, MSM aired all of Trump's lie-filled propaganda "briefings" and never said he "lies", using weird code for it, and nicer sounding synonyms like "falsehoods".  Now they simply cut off his anti-election screeds and say he lies.  Most investigative news organizations are simply overloaded because of the sheer quantity of bullshit going on in this Administration.  When things are put together retrospectively, the honest readers will see the sheer amount of lunacy as well as the GOP enablers that swept it under the rug.  I still can't get my head wrapped around the fact that he said, right before the elections, that COVID-19 was essentially no big deal and going away and the media would stop talking about it after the elections.  That alone, and his golfing while we have record outbreaks, would be sufficient to undermine previous presidents.  But because we're so used to the degree and amount of his bullshit, it's like a frog in a pot with the water slowly reaching boiling.

I could literally type two dozen other things Trump's administration has done off the top of my head that would've been massive scandals in other presidencies.  Any news organization that thoroughly investigates and publishes on all of it would, by default, seem like they are incredibly biased against Trump because it would drown out most other news.

RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 11-16-2020

(11-16-2020, 02:33 AM)2006alum Wrote:  
(11-15-2020, 09:20 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  I know this is hard for you to believe, but there are lots of people out there (many of them rather sharp by objective measures) who believe (i) Covid is serious, (ii) reasonable safety precautions - most obviously wearing masks indoors - should be followed universally, and (iii) the MSM has had it out for Trump since the day he inexplicably won the election.  And btw, that is true independent of the belief that Trump has clustered the federal response to Covid to a fare thee well (and that most all of the MSM critique of that is legit).
 

There it is again: "there are lots of people who think...." It's a claim to the authority of the crowd without being sourced to any rigorous, evidence-backed data suggesting that that is in fact what the crowd thinks. And more to the point, I'm not on this forum to find out what the crowd thinks -- if I did, I'd be on Pew's website, or Gallup's, but not here. I'm in this forum talk to you, so what do you think? Do you think the MSM has had it out for Trump since day one? Do you think reasonable safety precautions should be the limit for COVID containment? Do you think certain governors have gone too far? If so, say that. If not, then let the unnamed crowd speak for itself. (Or at least give me some poll results indicating what they think.) 

I just find this reflexive rhetorical move bemusing, because it keeps happening with people who want to present heterodox views vis-a-vis others on this board, but kinda-sorta don't want to stand behind their statements themselves.

Yes; yes; I don't know (don't pay much attention to other states).  
At the outset, I thought the restrictions on outdoor activities were knee-jerk and fear-based.  The beach closures over Memorial Day (??) also struck me as a an overreaction, but I'm in NoCal so didn't give it too much thought.  
Have mostly focused on Dear Bureaucrat in SCC - yes, yes, yes, she's doing a bang up job by keeping numbers down (which is easy part, especially if you're last to open anything up!).  But hey, at least the Merc's front page story is that hospitals are bracing for surge in cases.  So that's progress.  That is where the focus should be - well that, and actual surges.

RE: Transition funds - Mick - 11-16-2020

(11-16-2020, 08:00 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote:  For the longest time, MSM aired all of Trump's lie-filled propaganda "briefings" and never said he "lies", using weird code for it, and nicer sounding synonyms like "falsehoods".  Now they simply cut off his anti-election screeds and say he lies.  Most investigative news organizations are simply overloaded because of the sheer quantity of bullshit going on in this Administration.  When things are put together retrospectively, the honest readers will see the sheer amount of lunacy as well as the GOP enablers that swept it under the rug.  I still can't get my head wrapped around the fact that he said, right before the elections, that COVID-19 was essentially no big deal and going away and the media would stop talking about it after the elections.  That alone, and his golfing while we have record outbreaks, would be sufficient to undermine previous presidents.  But because we're so used to the degree and amount of his bullshit, it's like a frog in a pot with the water slowly reaching boiling.

I could literally type two dozen other things Trump's administration has done off the top of my head that would've been massive scandals in other presidencies.  Any news organization that thoroughly investigates and publishes on all of it would, by default, seem like they are incredibly biased against Trump because it would drown out most other news.

Harvard's Kennedy School seems to think the media focused on the negative re: Trump.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=ab6d830a9d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085

Trump was covered far more negatively than other presidents:

[Image: figure-4.png?resize=768%2C402&ssl=1]
(11-16-2020, 08:00 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote:  For the longest time, MSM aired all of Trump's lie-filled propaganda "briefings" and never said he "lies", using weird code for it, and nicer sounding synonyms like "falsehoods".  Now they simply cut off his anti-election screeds and say he lies.  Most investigative news organizations are simply overloaded because of the sheer quantity of bullshit going on in this Administration.  When things are put together retrospectively, the honest readers will see the sheer amount of lunacy as well as the GOP enablers that swept it under the rug.  I still can't get my head wrapped around the fact that he said, right before the elections, that COVID-19 was essentially no big deal and going away and the media would stop talking about it after the elections.  That alone, and his golfing while we have record outbreaks, would be sufficient to undermine previous presidents.  But because we're so used to the degree and amount of his bullshit, it's like a frog in a pot with the water slowly reaching boiling.

I could literally type two dozen other things Trump's administration has done off the top of my head that would've been massive scandals in other presidencies.  Any news organization that thoroughly investigates and publishes on all of it would, by default, seem like they are incredibly biased against Trump because it would drown out most other news.

Just want to make sure I understand you correctly -- your thesis is that the mainstream media held back with respect to Trump?