(August 28, 2018 at 10:58 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Way to attack the example used to illustrate a point rather than attack the point itself. The "skillset" of an editor for a liberal newspaper is not the same as that for a conservative paper as judgements which call upon the editors values are applied, which might not align as well with a conservative paper's mission as that of a liberal paper.
Seeing as a conservative/liberal paper's mission is in part to further conservative/liberal causes, that refutes your previous claim that the goal in applying for a position at a liberal newspaper is merely to get a job, and not to advance liberal causes.
Quote:But if you don't like the example, no problem. We'll just substitute a different one. Let's say that one is a progressive commentator. One is likely to concentrate on acquiring a position at NPR rather than at Fox News as one's progressive views would be less welcome at Fox. The candidate is interested in a job, not pushing progressive viewpoints. As with Mueller, the difference is that it is the political bias of others and how they may influence those others which is the political reality that one is dealing with. In both cases, the person is not guided in their actions by their political biases, but realistically must accommodate the fact that others are engaged in making politically biased actions which would affect one's ability to accomplish non-political goals. So, no, it isn't Mueller's politics at issue, nor are his politics dictating his decision. That's why, as noted, Mueller's decision is not political, though it takes political realities into account. In that instance, it is other people making politically biased decisions. Mueller is simply reacting to that reality in line with his goals and mandate as special prosecutor.
Isn't a special counsel's goal to determine the truth? You act as if it's to get a prosecution regardless of what's found.
Also, considering the Strzok/Page texts, it's pretty tough to make the case that this process isn't political.
