Donald Trump offers Jeff Sessions attorney general post

[LeafByNiggle]

Here’s the thing, if the statement below (made by Trump’s communications director Jason Miller) is false, where are the allegations disproving it? “You know, when Senator Sessions was U.S. attorney, he filed a number of desegregation lawsuits in Alabama and he also voted in favor of the 30-year extension of the Civil Rights Act,” … “He also voted to confirm Attorney General Eric Holder and even spearheaded the effort toward giving the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks.”
It is easy to dismiss everything that doesn’t come from an “approved” source, but if any of these claims are false it would be a trivial thing to disprove them, something you would expect every “approved” source would jump at the chance to do. Since no one has contested these claims it seems likely they are all true.

I didn’t say it was false. When someone presents new information, the burden is on them to support it, not on me to disprove it. In fact, if you read one of my other posts, I did in fact confirm the truth of the statement made above. But what I was not able to confirm was the nature of those desegregation lawsuits, and the role Sessions played in their prosecution. All I saw was that he “signed 10 pleadings” against segregation. Does this mean he just signed his name? Practically speaking, did he have a choice? Did he put his political career on the line to do it? Maybe. I don’t know. I just know that any article that starts out the way that one did is not to be trusted as a sole source. And the rest of Sessions’ history is not consistent with the image of a champion for civil rights, hence my skepticism.

 

[ucfengr]

Why do you arbitrarily restrict me to removing city populations? If you can remove cites I can remove rural areas. “Republican stronghold” is a concept that need not mean “a physically dense population”. The fact is that you arbitrarily selected a group of people without whom Hillary could not have won the popular vote. I could arbitrarily select a different group of people without whom Trump would not have been elected. And I think I could do it by removing fewer people than you did.

By that definition, “Republican strongholds” make up about 90% of the geographic are of the country. And, that 90% of the country produces roughly 100% of the nation’s food, energy, and manufactured goods, just as an aside. All this makes the Calexit and similar movements look pretty silly. I reminded of what they said about South Carolina in the run up to the Civil War, too small for a country, too large for an insane asylum.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

By that definition, “Republican strongholds” make up about 90% of the geographic are of the country.

What makes the measure of square miles inhabited entitle those who inhabit it entitled to more consideration than an equal number of people inhabiting a smaller number of square miles? The President does not represent lizards and cornstalks and cypress trees and mountains and rivers. He represents people. The number of square miles they inhabit is of no consequence to the recognition of human rights.

And, that 90% of the country produces roughly 100% of the nation’s food, energy, and manufactured goods, just as an aside.

I dispute your actual numbers, but that is beside the point. All you have shown is that 90% of square miles is inhabited by people who hold more resources and power than others. That should not entitle them to special consideration either.

 

[YADA]

What makes the measure of square miles inhabited entitle those who inhabit it entitled to more consideration than an equal number of people inhabiting a smaller number of square miles? The President does not represent lizards and cornstalks and cypress trees and mountains and rivers. He represents people. The number of square miles they inhabit is of no consequence to the recognition of human rights.

I dispute your actual numbers, but that is beside the point. All you have shown is that 90% of square miles is inhabited by people who hold more resources and power than others. That should not entitle them to special consideration either.

It was States that ratified the Constitution not individuals …it was States that came together to form an Union …

The president does not represent individuals …the president represent the United States …so primarily they represent each State and each state is equal in staring …Alaska does not have any more clout than Rhode Island because it is the largest in size … California does not have greater clout due to its population …the States are represented in the Electoral College by their agreement to be ‘in Union’ with each other. States have rights … The people are also recognized in the Presidential election by their vote …but their primary representatives are in Congress and are directly voted upon …

 

[incense]

This from a fake news site. Show me a real reference…

Amazing! The alternative press was just warning us that the latest Democrat (Soros) attempt to regain citizen confidence in the outed biased media was to start labeling the ones who brought the truth to us this election as “fake news”.

And here it is! And over two pages of posts, you emphasize it several times.

Debate techniques say that if you can’t debunk the facts, you discredit the source. And here we see it in action.

 

[JW55]

Why go to the most biased sources you can find - for either the left or the right? Why not look for real news sources that make at least some attempt at truth and objectivity? Any article that starts out with “Dear Lefties, Spawn Of Satan Jeff Sessions Actually Took On The KKK and Desegregated Schools” is obviously making no such attempt, and should be disregarded by anyone looking for the truth. As it turns out, I was able to confirm a tiny bit of truth alluded to in that article, as I posted earlier, but only after I had verified it from other sources. I do the same with info from left-leaning publications.

“Most biased source”? You mean like New York Times, Washington Post? They should at least have a comparable warning- “Liberal News and Columns” before reading it.

I read both sides of the very liberal and the very conservative to form my own opinion. I am generally very conservative in my political views but I don’t shut out reading the other side .I must admit it can be painful. I see the New York Times, Washington Post and Huffington Post as no more than Liberal propaganda machines, so I would not view them as unbiased journalism or a source I would put a lot of faith in. As a rule people will want to read a news source that mirrors their own views, that is just human nature.

 

[JW55]

Why go to the most biased sources you can find - for either the left or the right? Why not look for real news sources that make at least some attempt at truth and objectivity? Any article that starts out with “Dear Lefties, Spawn Of Satan Jeff Sessions Actually Took On The KKK and Desegregated Schools” is obviously making no such attempt, and should be disregarded by anyone looking for the truth. As it turns out, I was able to confirm a tiny bit of truth alluded to in that article, as I posted earlier, but only after I had verified it from other sources. I do the same with info from left-leaning publications.

Please identify what you consider to be an “unbiased source”.

 

[sallybutler]

Amazing! The alternative press was just warning us that the latest Democrat (Soros) attempt to regain citizen confidence in the outed biased media was to start labeling the ones who brought the truth to us this election as “fake news”.

And here it is! And over two pages of posts, you emphasize it several times.

Debate techniques say that if you can’t debunk the facts, you discredit the source. And here we see it in action.

Aren’t all media bad? Wasn’t that one of Trump’s talking points. Boo the media, not just the so called main stream media (which, given the results of the election, would make Fox the most mainstream of the mainstream).

 

[dixieagle]

We live in Mobile, AL, and Jeff Sessions lives a few miles away. My husband is a local TV journalist and the first journalist (to our knowledge) to tweet about the appointment, based on something Sen. Richard Shelby had released, evidently prematurely. We used to meet Sen. Sessions occasionally when he was visiting a parent in the nursing home where my MIL lived. My husband has interviewed him numerous times, and is in frequent contact with his “right hand woman”. My husband is the only local journalist Sessions has spoken with since the election.

The Senator is undoubtedly very conservative, and illegal immigration has long been one of his biggest issues. I don’t share his particular view on this subject. However, from everything we have observed over decades, he is a fine, decent, humble family man, and a man of utmost integrity. He is, in my estimation, utterly incorruptible.

I think the allegations of racism are overblown in the extreme. He marched, arms linked, with John Lewis at the recent 50th anniversary of the Selma march, and the young, African American US attorney in our region, who is a Democrat, had this to say about him: “Jeff Sessions is a man of outstanding character with an impeccable reputation for integrity. I have no doubt that he will be an outstanding U.S. Attorney General. I wish him much success in this new leadership role in our nation.”

We’ve heard much about “Jefferson Beauregard Sessions”, something that Ted Kennedy harped on as far back as the hearings in which he was denied confirmation as a federal judge. He had no more say in his name than did “Barack Hussein Obama”.

I did not vote for either Trump or Clinton (American Solidarity Party for me) but, based on our knowledge of Sen. Sessions over decades, I believe that much of what is written about him is malicious and untrue. The knee-jerk reactions by some people and media outlets, simply because he is a Trump appointee, are short-sighted and unfair.

 

[JW55]

We live in Mobile, AL, and Jeff Sessions lives a few miles away. My husband is a local TV journalist and the first journalist (to our knowledge) to tweet about the appointment, based on something Sen. Richard Shelby had released, evidently prematurely. We used to meet Sen. Sessions occasionally when he was visiting a parent in the nursing home where my MIL lived. My husband has interviewed him numerous times, and is in frequent contact with his “right hand woman”. My husband is the only local journalist Sessions has spoken with since the election.

The Senator is undoubtedly very conservative, and illegal immigration has long been one of his biggest issues. I don’t share his particular view on this subject. However, from everything we have observed over decades, he is a fine, decent, humble family man, and a man of utmost integrity. He is, in my estimation, utterly incorruptible.

I think the allegations of racism are overblown in the extreme. He marched, arms linked, with John Lewis at the recent 50th anniversary of the Selma march, and the young, African American US attorney in our region, who is a Democrat, had this to say about him: “Jeff Sessions is a man of outstanding character with an impeccable reputation for integrity. I have no doubt that he will be an outstanding U.S. Attorney General. I wish him much success in this new leadership role in our nation.”

We’ve heard much about “Jefferson Beauregard Sessions”, something that Ted Kennedy harped on as far back as the hearings in which he was denied confirmation as a federal judge. He had no more say in his name than did “Barack Hussein Obama”.

I did not vote for either Trump or Clinton (American Solidarity Party for me) but, based on our knowledge of Sen. Sessions over decades, I believe that much of what is written about him is malicious and untrue. The knee-jerk reactions by some people and media outlets, simply because he is a Trump appointee, are short-sighted and unfair.

Thank you for posting this.

 

[dixieagle]

Thank you for posting this.

You’re very welcome. Hate to see a decent human being castigated.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Please identify what you consider to be an “unbiased source”.

It is much easier to identify a biased one. And the one cited is about as biased as you can get.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Amazing! The alternative press was just warning us that the latest Democrat (Soros) attempt to regain citizen confidence in the outed biased media was to start labeling the ones who brought the truth to us this election as “fake news”.

And here it is! And over two pages of posts, you emphasize it several times.

Debate techniques say that if you can’t debunk the facts, you discredit the source. And here we see it in action.

The facts, such as they were, I cited. But no one, right or left, would ever say that article had any high journalistic standards, so that it should be believed as a trusted source. But it serve as a nice echo chamber for those so inclined.

 

[mary_bobo]

It is much easier to identify a biased one. And the one cited is about as biased as you can get.

What news source is unbiased, in your opinion?

 

[JW55]

It is much easier to identify a biased one. And the one cited is about as biased as you can get.

So apparently you don’t have an unbiased source. Yet we are supposed to draw our news stories from unbiased, reliable sources only. Kinda makes it tough to provide anything to substantiate one’s position doesn’t it?

 

[sallybutler]

What news source is unbiased, in your opinion?

In my opinion, an unbiased news source is like an unicorn. They are all biased. Therefore it makes sense to get news from a variety of sources in order to get a more well-rounded view of an issue. I read the New York Times, Drudge, Huffington Post, and Blaze on a regular basis. I tend to stay away from WND and Breitbart because they tend towards conspiracy theories.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In my opinion, an unbiased news source is like an unicorn. They are all biased. Therefore it makes sense to get news from a variety of sources in order to get a more well-rounded view of an issue. I read the New York Times, Drudge, Huffington Post, and Blaze on a regular basis. I tend to stay away from WND and Breitbart because they tend towards conspiracy theories.

Every reporter has a bias, of course. But not every reporter gives his bias free reign over his journalistic standards. I don’t know what some people want to cast all news sources as equally unreliable, other than to sow confusion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So apparently you don’t have an unbiased source. Yet we are supposed to draw our news stories from unbiased, reliable sources only. Kinda makes it tough to provide anything to substantiate one’s position doesn’t it?

Actually, the number of news sources that uphold decent journalistic standards is too many to list. It would be unfair to single out just a few.

 

[pnewton]

Actually, the number of news sources that uphold decent journalistic standards is too many to list. It would be unfair to single out just a few.

Fox and CNN do pretty well, if you stick just to the news reports and not all the filler. Most of the local news channels do pretty well here, again, if you stick just to the news reports. In all cases, you have to be careful and avoid being lead into things that are implied. But if you stick just to what is literally said, usually its okay.

In printed media, it is easier to determine spin by noting key words that relay more than simple facts, but inject emotional assumptions. “Mr. Xavier* said*” can be rendered, “interjected”, “retorted”, " exclaimed", etc.

 

[AbideWithMe]

We live in Mobile, AL, and Jeff Sessions lives a few miles away. My husband is a local TV journalist and the first journalist (to our knowledge) to tweet about the appointment, based on something Sen. Richard Shelby had released, evidently prematurely. We used to meet Sen. Sessions occasionally when he was visiting a parent in the nursing home where my MIL lived. My husband has interviewed him numerous times, and is in frequent contact with his “right hand woman”. My husband is the only local journalist Sessions has spoken with since the election.

The Senator is undoubtedly very conservative, and illegal immigration has long been one of his biggest issues. I don’t share his particular view on this subject. However, from everything we have observed over decades, he is a fine, decent, humble family man, and a man of utmost integrity. He is, in my estimation, utterly incorruptible.

I think the allegations of racism are overblown in the extreme. He marched, arms linked, with John Lewis at the recent 50th anniversary of the Selma march, and the young, African American US attorney in our region, who is a Democrat, had this to say about him: “Jeff Sessions is a man of outstanding character with an impeccable reputation for integrity. I have no doubt that he will be an outstanding U.S. Attorney General. I wish him much success in this new leadership role in our nation.”

We’ve heard much about “Jefferson Beauregard Sessions”, something that Ted Kennedy harped on as far back as the hearings in which he was denied confirmation as a federal judge. He had no more say in his name than did “Barack Hussein Obama”.

I did not vote for either Trump or Clinton (American Solidarity Party for me) but, based on our knowledge of Sen. Sessions over decades, I believe that much of what is written about him is malicious and untrue. The knee-jerk reactions by some people and media outlets, simply because he is a Trump appointee, are short-sighted and unfair.

Thanks for the informative post.