Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

When the argument is clearly flawed,  how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?

how is his argument "clearly flawed"?

Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?

And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."  Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. 

When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading?  How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance.  Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one?  If she's the first one, why her?  

This is what I mean by flawed. 

is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat. 

we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

When the argument is clearly flawed,  how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?

how is his argument "clearly flawed"?

Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?

And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."  Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. 

When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading?  How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance.  Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one?  If she's the first one, why her?  

This is what I mean by flawed. 

is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat. 

we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic. 

The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic.  The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right.  I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos.  It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer.  The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative.  I don't know how it could be any more obvious.  

they posted the actual picture?

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

When the argument is clearly flawed,  how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?

how is his argument "clearly flawed"?

Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?

And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."  Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. 

When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading?  How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance.  Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one?  If she's the first one, why her?  

This is what I mean by flawed. 

is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat. 

we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic. 

The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic.  The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right.  I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos.  It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer.  The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative.  I don't know how it could be any more obvious.  

I guess I'll just get back to my idiot box in the corner. 

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

When the argument is clearly flawed,  how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?

how is his argument "clearly flawed"?

Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?

And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."  Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. 

When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading?  How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance.  Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one?  If she's the first one, why her?  

This is what I mean by flawed. 

is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat. 

we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic. 

The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic.  The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right.  I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos.  It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer.  The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative.  I don't know how it could be any more obvious.  

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

When the argument is clearly flawed,  how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?

how is his argument "clearly flawed"?

Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?

And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."  Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. 

When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading?  How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance.  Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one?  If she's the first one, why her?  

This is what I mean by flawed. 

is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat. 

we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic. 

The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic.  The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right.  I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos.  It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer.  The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative.  I don't know how it could be any more obvious.  

TDC never posted nudes either. I don't how you can call my statements flawed, then go on to say that.
From everything I read they did not change a single word in the article. They only changed a few words in the heading. Never posted the pictures, and from the beginning claimed the pictures were fake.
But my point was to never defend TDC anyway, they are not a useful source to me.

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

When the argument is clearly flawed,  how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?

how is his argument "clearly flawed"?

Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?

And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."  Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. 

When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading?  How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance.  Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one?  If she's the first one, why her?  

This is what I mean by flawed. 

is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat. 

we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic. 

The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic.  The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right.  I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos.  It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer.  The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative.  I don't know how it could be any more obvious.  

You also think TDC is the only news site to have catching/misleading headings? You think The Washington Post doesn't?
I just went to their website, and based off of the very first heading I saw I'd have to disagree.
https://www.washingtonpost.com
"Thousands more migrant children taken from parents at border, report says"

From just reading the title is sounds like more are still being separated. You'd have to read the article to find out this includes numbers from years ago, before this was even on the radar. Wouldn't you agree that heading is misleading then?

And that was just reading the first heading on their page. I actually didn't even read any other titles, I stopped with the headline story. imagine if I dug down deep how many examples there are. Every news agency does this, I don't know why this would be surprising to anyone.

"Officials estimated that [the Office Refugee Resettlement] received and released thousands of separated children prior to" the June 26 court order, the report says. These children were "separated during an influx that began in 2017, before the accounting required by the Court, and HHS has faced challenges in identifying separated children."

"We don't have any information on those children who were released prior to the court order," an official with the HHS Office of Inspector General told reporters today, according to NBC News. That includes their "total number and current status," according to the report.

The separations started in 2017 as a sort of "trial balloon" for the zero tolerance policy, Politico reports, citing an HHS official. While the HHS report says that the children have been released, it's unclear how many are actually back with their parents. "There is even less visibility for separated children who fall outside the court case," the report says

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

When the argument is clearly flawed,  how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?

how is his argument "clearly flawed"?

Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?

And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."  Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. 

When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading?  How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance.  Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one?  If she's the first one, why her?  

This is what I mean by flawed. 

is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat. 

we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic. 

The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic.  The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right.  I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos.  It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer.  The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative.  I don't know how it could be any more obvious.  

TDC never posted nudes either. I don't how you can call my statements flawed, then go on to say that.
From everything I read they did not change a single word in the article. They only changed a few words in the heading. Never posted the pictures, and from the beginning claimed the pictures were fake.
But my point was to never defend TDC anyway, they are not a useful source to me.

There was a link to the photos.  You're splitting hairs and morality doesn't split hairs, the law does.  

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

When the argument is clearly flawed,  how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?

how is his argument "clearly flawed"?

Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?

And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."  Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. 

When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading?  How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance.  Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one?  If she's the first one, why her?  

This is what I mean by flawed. 

is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat. 

we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic. 

The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic.  The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right.  I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos.  It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer.  The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative.  I don't know how it could be any more obvious.  

You also think TDC is the only news site to have catching/misleading headings? You think The Washington Post doesn't?
I just went to their website, and based off of the very first heading I saw I'd have to disagree.
https://www.washingtonpost.com
"Thousands more migrant children taken from parents at border, report says"

From just reading the title is sounds like more are still being separated. You'd have to read the article to find out this includes numbers from years ago, before this was even on the radar. Wouldn't you agree that heading is misleading then?

And that was just reading the first heading on their page. I actually didn't even read any other titles, I stopped with the headline story. imagine if I dug down deep how many examples there are. Every news agency does this, I don't know why this would be surprising to anyone.

You sure it includes numbers from years ago?  According to Reason.com, the IG report brought forth numbers where the separation started in 2017, not some pre-Trump era.  From Reason (hardly a liberal publication)   http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/17/the-trump-administration-separated-thous

"Officials estimated that [the Office Refugee Resettlement] received and released thousands of separated children prior to" the June 26 court order, the report says. These children were "separated during an influx that began in 2017, before the accounting required by the Court, and HHS has faced challenges in identifying separated children."

"We don't have any information on those children who were released prior to the court order," an official with the HHS Office of Inspector General told reporters today, according to NBC News. That includes their "total number and current status," according to the report.

The separations started in 2017 as a sort of "trial balloon" for the zero tolerance policy, Politico reports, citing an HHS official. While the HHS report says that the children have been released, it's unclear how many are actually back with their parents. "There is even less visibility for separated children who fall outside the court case," the report says

The article I quoted stated the separation began "early in the Trump administration." He took office Jan 2017. It is not 2019, so yes, the better part of 2 years this has been going on.
Are we really debating that every news source doesn't use misleading headlines at times?

mcgruff10 said:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was the lone House Democrat to vote against a bill to reopen the government on Wednesday, a position she described as “a tough/nuanced call,” The Hill reported.

The short-term measure included funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which Ocasio-Cortez explained in an Instagram story is opposed by many people she represents.

“Most of our votes are pretty straightforward, but today was a tough/nuanced call,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “We didn’t vote with the party because one of the spending bills included ICE funding and our community felt strongly about not funding that.”

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was the lone House Democrat to vote against a bill to reopen the government on Wednesday, a position she described as “a tough/nuanced call,” The Hill reported.

The short-term measure included funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which Ocasio-Cortez explained in an Instagram story is opposed by many people she represents.

“Most of our votes are pretty straightforward, but today was a tough/nuanced call,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “We didn’t vote with the party because one of the spending bills included ICE funding and our community felt strongly about not funding that.”

Honestly representing her constituents. Refreshing.

Agreed.  (damn we are on a roll lately!!)