Share this page!

AG Profile picture
Twitter logo
14 Jun, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Obviously dishonest nonsense. Yes, Republicans have opposed some ideas from Dems. They have supported others.

Ex: Under Clinton
Brady Act passed 63-36 w 14 R's
NAFTA passed 73-26 w 28 R's
94 Crime Bill passed 95-4
96 Welfare Bill passed 78-21
etc etc.
I can do the same thing with plenty of Obama bills. I can also show Trump initiatives that received no Dem support (2017 tax cuts). Thinks about what a dishonest partisan someone has to be to only emphasize those examples.
Just looks at how dishonestly the article starts. Republicans didn't say no on infrastructure, they've offered extensive counters despite skepticism within the caucus. But Harwood pretends not going along with whatever Biden/Dems want is just obstruction.
This is at least the second example today of a well-known correspondent distorting recent history to try to advance the media campaign in favor of getting rid of the filibuster. At some point this activism isn't just dishonest, it also embarrassing.
Hilarious. While Harwood is claiming Republicans refuse to compromise on infrastructure, Politico insists Republicans are compromising on infrastructure as part of a secret plot to hurt the rest of Biden's agenda. politico.com/news/2021/06/1…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with AG

AG Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AGHamilton29

AG Profile picture
14 Jun
This is such a great example of the problem with media fact-checking right here.

When it comes to partisan bills, each side has partisan arguments that emphasize their points. This is basically just a rebuttal to Republican arguments, not a fact-check.
Out of the 5 things that Dale focuses on, 4 are mostly true. The one that he claims is false is McConnell saying it applied to the South when it applied to 8 Southern States and Alaska (Really got him on that one).

They would never publish a rebuttal to partisan Dem arguments.
But again, a lot of media fact-checkers think their job is to provide cover for Dem arguments and combat Republican arguments. That's how you end up with orgs like Politifact constantly rating spin from one side as false and spin from the other as true.
Read 4 tweets
AG Profile picture
2 Jun
Since I'm doing threads, I'll do one more. Someone asked me last week why I tend to get so many stories right early on that much of the mainstream press and partisan press gets wrong? It's a combination of common sense, research, curiosity, and skepticism.
When people see a story (myself included) they tend to think about whether it aligns with a narrative they already believe. That often leads to people falling for things that are false, but fit with what they want to believe.

(Happens to everyone!)
But I've developed a habit of often (not always!) then pausing and asking some questions: 1) Does it make sense? 2) Is the sourcing reliable? 3) What are people who would disagree w that narrative saying? 4) Does it need more evidence?
Read 8 tweets
AG Profile picture
2 Jun
I probably should just ignore it, but this @JVLast post on the alleged "double standard" of conservative media is so bad that it's worthy of dissecting how it repeatedly misleads readers to sell a narrative.

thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/the-conserva…
So it starts with this juxtaposition. He's putting the largest news publications in the country accusing those of simply bringing up the possibility of a lab leak of promoting a debunked conspiracy on the same level as random people claiming it was a bio-weapon (who?)
Next, "over time" is doing a lot of work here & the claim of more pieces is just nonsense. A year and a half later some are retracting something that was obvious in Feb of 2020. And there is more whitewashing going on than self-reflection from much of the press.
Read 10 tweets
AG Profile picture
29 May
I'm just going to do this once, then ignore the angry comments.

1- Many on the right have gone out of their way to wrongly downplay 1/6. An angry mob, fueled by 2 months of false conspiracies, tried to take over the Capitol and attacked Capitol Police.
Cont) There was no chance of them being successful, but the goal was clearly to alter the outcome of the electoral process.

2- Some on the left and in the media are now exaggerating the situation to score political points. As an example, it was not comparable to 9/11.
3) The initial reports on Officer Sickick being killed due to a blow to the head were wrong. He died of a stroke and claims he was murdered are incorrect. That does not mean that the events that day did not play a role in his death. Unknowable to what extent.
Read 8 tweets
AG Profile picture
29 May
Put this in the context of the filibuster debate: Dems forced through a really questionable oversized 2.2T relief bill because they could pass it without any Republican buy-in. Only now are we having a debate about the potential harms as inflation concerns are growing.
Biden admin ended up negotiating a few small details w Manchin and then just passed it without any actual attempt at compromise. Now imagine that extends to other significant topics. It's supposed to be hard to pass big legislation because it has real impacts. You need concensus.
As for the economic debate: You still get the feeling that a lot of academic economists are either ignoring or downplaying extent of inflation in the market (esp in manufacturing). Spending additional trillions we don't have now would be a big mistake.
Read 4 tweets
AG Profile picture
29 May
It’s a good thing we aren’t a democracy then. Also, I love all these guys pretending like the 11 Senators just abstained by accident. The system is meant to make it difficult to implement significant changes and requires consensus. That’s a good thing for stability.
The debate over the filibuster isn’t about one particular bill or policy because it’s about how our system works, though those that only care about short-sighted gains keep pretending otherwise because the goal is to bully supporters of the filibuster into just giving in.
The government’s role isn’t to constantly radically change the direction of the country. That’s exactly what you will have if you remove this essential check & a party w a bare majority in Congress and control of the WH can pass anything. Esp w how polarized things are now.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @AGHamilton29 has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @AGHamilton29!

Read all threads by @AGHamilton29

:(