On a related theme:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinntyr4.html
Chapter four of Zinn, on the role of class conflict in the American Revolution.
WTF is this person talking about? Are they drunk? It took 15 secs to find a video of him saying those words.
Assuming I’m reading as I think you intend to be read, the lie she’s referring to is what Trump’s saying about birthright citizenship being unique to the US, not that he said it.
And yes (to someone else further up the thread), technically he’s correct that the US is the only country that grants US citizenship to people born in the US, but I don’t think he’s smart enough to hedge his words that way. Plus it’s a stupid way to hedge one’s words anyway.
Sooo - her beef is that they are reprinting the lie Trump told, not that they lied with a fake quote? Because honestly I can’t tell anymore. I though the anti-Trump people would be pro-NYT, not accusing them of propaganda by quoting the President.
She’s referring to the fact that NYT simply quotes him verbatim rather than calling his lies what they are. Lies.
She’s far from drunk, she’s an expert on totalitarian regimes and has predicted every hellish move from these assholes so far. She’s been the most sober voice out there, since before the election, and people have been ignoring her, simply because she’s a woman.
The NYT might be more subtle about it, but they are just as much a propaganda arm as FoxNews and people on the left (and you don’t have to be very left) have been pointing it out for the past two years.
All the articles about dapper Nazis and economically anxious racists, all the uncritical reprints of what Trump says, hell, look how they framed the pipe-bombings (there was literally a story about the mean things the targets said about Trump, as though they had it coming).
The NYT is not anti-Trump and never has been.
Difficult to do with just a headline. I really don’t blame people too much for leading with the quote. I can’t tell if they actually delve into it in the article, as I can’t access the times.
Literally the first time I’ve seen mention of this person, but I am not on Twitter.
Again, I can’t follow a lot of what the times says, but I know Trump doesn’t seem to like them.
At any rate - it is pretty hard for the casual observer to understand WTF is going on with that tweet. Again, pointing out the flaws with the whole medium.
nytimes changes it’s stories throughout the day, but the article now reads
President Trump said he was preparing an executive order that would nullify the long-accepted constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship in the United States, his latest attention-grabbing maneuver days before midterm congressional elections as he has sought to activate his base by vowing to clamp down on immigrants and immigration.
“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits,” Mr. Trump told Axios during an interview that was released in part on Tuesday, making a false claim. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”
In fact, at least 30 other countries, including Canada, Mexico and many others in the Western Hemisphere, grant automatic birthright citizenship, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that supports restricting immigration and whose work Mr. Trump’s advisers often cite.
But Mr. Trump’s plan met with swift pushback from some even in his own party on Tuesday. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, who is retiring, said in an interview that the president “obviously” cannot eviscerate birthright citizenship by executive order.
there’s a lot more, but I don’t feel like typing angle brackets for every paragraph.
Oh the NY Times has certainly never called out Trump’s lies. And certainly never with a front page headline, running tally of all of them explicitly tagged as lies. And large public discussion on exactly why they were switching to “lies” from various other less aggressive constructions. And they’d never continually publish op ed peices with “Trump” and “Lies” in the headlines.
Cause that there propagandaing New York Times is all about just letting Trump’s statements stand as if they were facts.
Yes sir-ee.
The first entry in the web archive, from 2:31 pm, reads
President Trump said he was preparing an executive order to end
birthright citizenship in the United States, his latest
attention-grabbing maneuver days before midterm congressional
elections, during which he has sought to activate his base by vowing to
clamp down on immigrants and immigration.
“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a
baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85
years, with all of those benefits,” Mr. Trump told Axios during an
interview that was released in part on Tuesday. “It’s ridiculous. It’s
ridiculous. And it has to end.”
In fact, dozens of other countries, including Canada, Mexico and many
others in the Western Hemisphere, grant automatic birthright
citizenship, according to a study by the Center for Immigration
Studies, an organization that supports restricting immigration and
whose work Mr. Trump’s advisers often cite.
it appears that the “making a false claim” sentence was added sometime before 7:26 PM.
How many writers whose work focuses on the rise and fall of modern authoritarian regimes do you know?
axios sounds like it’s goading him. Perhaps that’s just a way of getting him to say horrible things on camera.
The NYT has been working on Trump’s behalf from the beginning. Their editorial politics are far to the right of their public image, and they’re masters of the disguised promotion of political causes.
The NYT is a rag. They have always been shit; their early pieces on Hitler and Mussolini are grotesquely pro-fascist. Reliably appalling on civil rights for most of their history, too.
A quick note for all the people claiming that a plaintext reading of the 14th amendment would prevent a judicial finding in favor of banning birthright citizenship:
Justice Scalia claimed that the 14th amendment’s clause that says no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” does not apply to discrimination against women or gays. He said, “In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.” i.e., “any persons” means “any straight men.”
Another thing. American Samoa has been a US territory since 1900. Despite being US soil to the same extent that Puerto Rico or Guam or any other territory is, people born in American Samoa do not have birthright citizenship. Some American Samoans sued the federal government in 2015, where the DC district court of appeals ruled that the 14th amendment’s right to birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to all American territories (Tuaua v. United States). The litigants appealed, and in 2016 the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
The point here isn’t that Trump is likely to succeed, or even that he has a longshot chance. The point is that a recent Supreme Court justice denied the plaintext of the 14th amendment in favor of what he imagined the people who wrote it really meant, that a district court of appeals denied the plaintext of the 14th amendment, and that a supreme court that was more liberal than the one we have now upheld that denial.
They change their stories when people point it out to try to pretend, and they pinky-swear that from now on they’ll play hardball whenever the subscription numbers take a hit, then go right back to Nazi puff pieces and stenography. If you’ve got any background in media studies, the pattern is obvious.
On a lighter note, it seems that CBS News thinks that US citizenship law doesn’t apply in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.
You know you can copy, paste, then highlight and click the little quotes in the tool bar for it to generate the quote block?
Or Hawaii… but to be fair, no one cares about AK or HI.
Note their map largely signifies old world vs new world.
