Sarah Palin Reduced to Running Right Wing Click Bait Site

[47of74]

How the mighty have fallen....

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/sarah-palin-reduced-to-running-right-wing-clickbait-site-where-she-writes-about-hot-alpha-males/

Quote

Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who was once the Republican Party’s nominee to be vice president, has transformed her personal website into a shady right-wing clickbait site.

New York Magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi reports that SarahPalin.com is now a conservative content farm that features stories with headlines such as, “Alpha Males… Hot Hot Hot,” “Morning After Losing Georgia Election Democrats Receive FAR WORSE News,” and “EVIDENCE FOUND! Trump Was Right On Voter Fraud.”

The website’s stories are typically aggregated from other conservative outlets such as the Daily Caller and Fox News that promote right-wing viewpoints, although it also features more shameless clickbait such as articles on celebrities who are “jerks in real life” and a drawing of what Nuzzi says “appears to be diseased feet.”

Although Palin herself initially wrote some of the stories herself — including the aforementioned article on “hot” alpha males — she has since taken a backseat to several 20-something staff writers who have worked at assorted right-wing publications in the past.

May I just take a moment to say to Sarah....

Edited November 16, 2020 by Coconut Flan

[GreyhoundFan]

She is so blatantly desperate for attention. I can't stand her.

[47of74]

13 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

She is so blatantly desperate for attention. I can't stand her.

She's almost as bad as Agent Orange in wanting attention.  In a perfect world not only would she have been reduced to writing click bait articles, but Agent Orange would today be reporting for duty in a license plate factory.

 

[Cartmann99]

Some of her children have been reduced to shilling products on their social media accounts. The Palin family made millions at one time, but instead of making wise financial decisions so they could live comfortably for the rest of their lives, they blew their money on crap like hiring private planes, an ugly mansion in Arizona, and buying $900 shoes. Idiots.

[47of74]

14 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

Some of her children have been reduced to shilling products on their social media accounts. The Palin family made millions at one time, but instead of making wise financial decisions so they could live comfortably for the rest of their lives, they blew their money on crap like hiring private planes, an ugly mansion in Arizona, and buying $900 shoes. Idiots.

Yeah I have almost as many fucks to give about the Snowzilla and her spawn as I do about Scalise.

So many of the Palin family problems are self inflicted, and now that the Branch Trumpvidians have a bigger loud mouth racist they forgot all about Palin.

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

So many of the Palin family problems are self inflicted, and now that the Branch Trumpvidians have a bigger loud mouth racist they forgot all about Palin.

Sarah Palin assumed that Trump would hire her to work for him in some capacity, and now she's scrambling for money. She may be doing a fourth-rate YouTube "ministry" by the end of the year.  

[GreyhoundFan]

31 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

Sarah Palin assumed that Trump would hire her to work for him in some capacity, and now she's scrambling for money. She may be doing a fourth-rate YouTube "ministry" by the end of the year.  

Maybe Jill Rodrigues will get her into shilling Plexus. Jill is always on the hunt for "godly" women for her downline.

[47of74]

44 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

Sarah Palin assumed that Trump would hire her to work for him in some capacity, and now she's scrambling for money. She may be doing a fourth-rate YouTube "ministry" by the end of the year.  

Yeah Agent Orange is not the kind of blowhole to share the stage with anyone else.   I'm guessing he figured she'd try to upstage him so didn't give her a job in his shithole of an administration.

[infooverload]

Trump is the male equivalent to Palin. They both talk in word salads, their previous leadership is fraught with questionable outcomes, and their religious pandering is nauseating to witness. On a side note I would be interested to see Trump's college transcripts. Remember when Fox News and others would rail on about wanting to see Obama's academic record. With Trump it is never mentioned despite his abysmal speech patterns and rather embarrassing statements about his acquirement of realizing certain complexities inherent in domestic and foreign policy. Also the sites bang on about the what can only be described as the residual scary man talking points of chaos caused by Obama, yet are skimpy on being able to praise Trump's accomplishments. What happened to you can't blame the previous administration you're responsible now so get on with it attitude. We saw this attitude when people would say Obama is having to clean up Bush's mess. They didn't like it when Pelosi said the patently stupid thing of "Passing the bill before knowing what's in it." Yes I do realize she was talking about the said effects of the legislation, but conservatives never acknowledged this and mocked the Democrats merciless for this. Yet, the house passed bill was an embarrassingly short bill, but apparently it is too damn hard to read it. I mean come on citizens are paying you not your staff to work on the reading of a bill affecting a sizable portion of the economy. Then it was kicked to the Senate for a draconian style of working on it with no public knowledge. Yet please tell me again how those shady Democrats shoves the ACA down your throat. The whole thing makes a rational person with a memory go [emoji36]. Sorry for the long rant just needed to get some thoughts out.

 

 

[GrumpyGran]

8 hours ago, infooverload said:

Trump is the male equivalent to Palin. They both talk in word salads, their previous leadership is fraught with questionable outcomes, and their religious pandering is nauseating to witness. On a side note I would be interested to see Trump's college transcripts. Remember when Fox News and others would rail on about wanting to see Obama's academic record. With Trump it is never mentioned despite his abysmal speech patterns and rather embarrassing statements about his acquirement of realizing certain complexities inherent in domestic and foreign policy. Also the sites bang on about the what can only be described as the residual scary man talking points of chaos caused by Obama, yet are skimpy on being able to praise Trump's accomplishments. What happened to you can't blame the previous administration you're responsible now so get on with it attitude. We saw this attitude when people would say Obama is having to clean up Bush's mess. They didn't like it when Pelosi said the patently stupid thing of "Passing the bill before knowing what's in it." Yes I do realize she was talking about the said effects of the legislation, but conservatives never acknowledged this and mocked the Democrats merciless for this. Yet, the house passed bill was an embarrassingly short bill, but apparently it is too damn hard to read it. I mean come on citizens are paying you not your staff to work on the reading of a bill affecting a sizable portion of the economy. Then it was kicked to the Senate for a draconian style of working on it with no public knowledge. Yet please tell me again how those shady Democrats shoves the ACA down your throat. The whole thing makes a rational person with a memory go . Sorry for the long rant just needed to get some thoughts out.

 

 

Desperate for fame and money. Why don't they work on a Pay-Per-View Fight Club involving the whole family. They seem to enjoy that. I might pay to see Bristol drop-kick Willow. Then she do a little fake-dancing!

[47of74]

I see now Princess Dumbass of the North Woods is suing the New York Times cause they said some mean things about her...

Spoiler

"Today, Sarah Palin took a stand against The New York Times Company by filing a lawsuit which seeks to hold The Times accountable for stating that Governor Palin is part of a 'sickeningly familiar pattern' of politically motivated violence and that she incited the horrific 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords," lawyers for Palin said in a statement.

Well you did, Sarah.  She was the one who circulated that image with a bullseye on the image of Giffords and other Democratic Representatives in Congress.  Jesus how fucking stupid can you be Sarah?

[GreyhoundFan]

10 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

Jesus how fucking stupid can you be Sarah?

I don't think I can count that high. She is ridiculously stupid.

[FundieFarmer]

The site literally says, "DISCLAIMER: the articles on this website DO NOT necessarily reflect the views held by Governor Palin."

How? How? The site says SarahPalin.com. It's your campaign site. How is it NOT your views?

Oh, because you don't QAQC the content somebody named Lawrence Richard has been writing for you day in and day out? Is it his opinion? His unfettered, clickbaity opinion while you write daily devotions called "riches to rags" that don't actually have any spiritual meat to them? Eh, ok. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"How to argue Sarah Palin v. New York Times"

Spoiler

Sarah Palin's libel suit against the New York Times likely hinges on one legal phrase: “actual malice.” The law requires a public figure such as the former Republican vice-presidential nominee to show a high degree of journalistic malfeasance — not merely an honest mistake — to win a defamation case.

I've broken down some key points that a court might consider, along with arguments for each side, with help from Jonathan M. Albano, a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Boston, who has represented the Boston Globe for decades; and Joe Sibley of Camara & Sibley in Houston, who represents plaintiffs in libel cases.

What did the Times say?

The lawsuit is a response to a Times editorial published online June 14, the day of a shooting by James T. Hodgkinson at a Republican practice for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. Here is the relevant passage:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.

In reality, there was no “clear” or “direct” link between literature distributed by the Palin committee and the shooting that wounded Giffords — or any link at all. As The Washington Post Fact Checker explained, Loughner's “focus on Giffords began as early as 2007, long before the map was published. He became fixated on her since he met her at a constituent event in 2007.”

There is no evidence that Loughner ever saw the map in question, which the Times also mischaracterized. The map featured targets on the geographical locations of Democrat-held congressional districts but did not “put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.”

...

The Times issued a correction on June 16: “An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established. The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized crosshairs.”

What did Palin say?

Here's the opening line of the complaint Palin's attorneys filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Tuesday: “Mrs. Palin brings this action to hold the Times accountable for defaming her by publishing a statement about her that it knew to be false: that Mrs. Palin was responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011.”

The most important phrase here is “knew to be false.” Palin is not merely alleging that the Times made a mistake; she claims the paper's editorial board intentionally published inaccurate information.

“The defamatory content in the column is not overt but is by implication,” Sibley said. “In other words, it doesn't say, in so many words, that Palin incited Loughner, but it clearly suggests it. In such a case, federal courts have held that a defamation plaintiff must show that the author intended the defamatory impression. Based on the wording of the column itself and the retraction, that should be easy to do in this case.”

What does the law say?

I'll let the Legal Information Institute at Cornell handle this one:

The U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan has restricted defamation claims, limited by the First Amendment concerns. Thus, for instance, public officials and public figures (people who are famous) must show that statements were made with actual malice to recover in an action for defamation.

Actual malice means that a statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false. In addition, a plaintiff must show actual malice by “clear and convincing” evidence rather than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, preponderance of the evidence.

According to Albano, “reckless, in this area of the law, does not mean extremely negligent. It means that the defendant entertained serious, subjective doubts about the truth of the statement, sometimes rephrased as publishing with a 'high degree of awareness of probable falsity.' Proof of negligence is not enough to show actual malice — the plaintiff has to prove more than that a reasonable investigation or a reasonable person would have or should have known the statement is false.”

The case for Palin

The former Alaska governor can (and did, in her complaint) point to previous Times coverage that indicates the newspaper knew there was no link between Palin's committee and the shooting of Giffords.

Three days after the shooting, in January 2011, the Times reported that “there is no evidence that the person charged in the shootings, Jared L. Loughner, was a fan or a follower of Ms. Palin.” The same article relayed an argument presented by Palin defenders, who “noted that the police had found evidence suggesting that Mr. Loughner was obsessed with Ms. Giffords long before Ms. Palin put any kind of target on her.”

A few days later, Times op-ed columnist Charles M. Blow criticized Democrats for overreaching in their attempt to cast blame on Palin. Here's an excerpt:

The dots were too close and the temptation to connect them too strong. The target was a Democratic congresswoman. There was the map of her district in the crosshairs. There were her own prescient worries about overheated rhetoric.

Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right.

“I saw Goody Proctor with the devil! Oh, I mean Jared Lee Loughner! Yes him. With the devil!”

The only problem is that there was no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting. (In fact, a couple of people who said they knew him have described him as either apolitical or “quite liberal.”) The picture emerging is of a sad and lonely soul slowly, and publicly, slipping into insanity.

“Courts have held that when a journalist has a motive or agenda in connection with a story that would cause them to turn a blind eye to the truth, this can evidence of actual malice,” Sibley said. “I would expect Palin's lawyers to portray the Times in the expected way, as a 'false news' clearinghouse against conservative figures.”

The case for the Times

The Times has said it will defend itself “vigorously” but has not yet filed a formal response to Palin's complaint.

The newspaper might argue that the timing of the editorial's publication, just hours after Hodgkinson shot Scalise and four others, is evidence that errors should be attributed to haste, not malice. The editorial, as originally published, linked to an ABC News report from the day after the Giffords shooting that began like this:

In the stunned aftermath of the Tucson massacre, Sarah Palin has found herself in the crosshairs of the ensuing political debate with opponents suggesting she may have fueled the gunman's rage and her supporters saying it is “grotesque” to blame her and to politicize the tragedy.

There were many other reports of a similar nature at the same time. The Times could argue that its editorial writers were aware of these reports but, in their rush to publish quickly after the shooting of Scalise, committed an honest oversight and missed the follow-up reports — including the ones in their own paper — that debunked the notion of a link between Palin's committee and Loughner.

“The prior Times coverage of the Giffords shooting does not automatically prove that the editorial was published with actual malice,” Albano said. He pointed to the Supreme Court's decision in Times v. Sullivan, a landmark libel case that the Times won, despite publishing an advertisement that contained false information previously contradicted by Times news reports. Here's an excerpt from the ruling:

There is evidence that the Times published the advertisement without checking its accuracy against the news stories in the Times' own files. The mere presence of the stories in the files does not, of course, establish that the Times “knew” the advertisement was false, since the state of mind required for actual malice would have to be brought home to the persons in the Times' organization having responsibility for the publication of the advertisement.

The Times also might contend that, although it got the particulars wrong, it was right to say that the map produced by Palin's committee contributed generally to a toxic political climate that many people believe makes violence more likely. The paper could present as evidence the Palin committee's initial, absurd claim that the crosshairs on the map were intended to evoke surveyors' tools, not gun sights.

That assertion, later contradicted by Palin herself, indicated that the committee felt a twinge of guilt about its imagery, the Times could argue.

Alternatively — and despite the correction — the Times could argue that the factors which motivated Loughner are matters of opinion, not fact, and that an opinion of what inspired the shooting is protected free speech, however dubious the conclusion.

I so hope the NYT prevails.

[Howl]

The last kid has left home and Sarah and Todd are ready to flee Washilla, probably to Arizona or NM.  

Sarah Palin plans to leave Alaska

It's clear that Sarah (sigh) still has zero self awareness and has yet to develop a sense of irony. 

Quote

“I want to do something that will influence our culture,” she said. “To really remind people how important a work ethic is and to try to erase a lot of this idea that people have that government owes them anything. Or that anybody owes them anything.”

Palin said she still wants to be in “some positions here to get that message out there, how important it is to be independent, get out there and work for yourself.”

This is sounding a lot like they're looking for a not-for-profit scam for her and Todd to have an income without doing a job-type job where they actually, you know, work.  Plus, she had a pretty good gig going as governor of Alaska, but it was too much, you know, WORK. 

[JMarie]

Notice how the article doesn't mention her son Trig.  Will he be going with them?

[onekidanddone]

3 hours ago, JMarie said:

Notice how the article doesn't mention her son Trig.  Will he be going with them?

Isn’t he 10 or 11 years old? I’d hardly call that done when it comes to parenting. 

[47of74]

Even though McCain is no longer with us, his inflicting Sarah on us all is still one thing where I say fornicate you very much, John.

[JMarie]

17 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Isn’t he 10 or 11 years old? I’d hardly call that done when it comes to parenting. 

He's 10.

https://people.com/parents/bristol-palin-sarah-palin-celebrate-trigs-9th-birthday/

[Cartmann99]

You guys have already brought up Trig, but what about Piper? She just started her senior year of high school, so is she going to stay with one of their relatives while she finishes school? 

[JMarie]

Maybe Piper will move in with Bristol and help out with the kids? Bristol could use the help, since she got divorced over the summer.

[Howl]

9 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

You guys have already brought up Trig, but what about Piper? She just started her senior year of high school, so is she going to stay with one of their relatives while she finishes school? 

The article mentions that the "youngest daughter" is entering nursing school, so is presumably out of the house.  Thank Rufus at least one of those kids is thinking ahead to a vocation that does not involve brawling, grifting or love-can-wait Purity Pregnancy.

I can see how Wasilla could start to wear on one; very, very long winters with lots of cold and dark; every single person in town knows your business and she and Todd are holed up in the house all day every day because neither one has a (I'll spell it out here!) J. O. B.

[AmazonGrace]

The Daily Fail article that the linked article quotes says this:

Quote

Their three oldest children, Track, 29, Bristol, 27, Willow, 24, are now adults while Piper, 17, has just started her senior year in high school and plans to go to nursing school, and their youngest Trig, 10, will travel with them

 

[Howl]

That makes sense @AmazonGrace; they are planning their escape for next spring or fall, after Piper graduates from high school.  Saying a little Rufus prayer that Piper makes it through high school with no *clears throat* set backs and continues on to nursing school.  

Bristol is a newly divorced single parent of three children and she's starting a new reality show called Teen Mom OG, even though she's 27 or so.   Her current ex, Dakota, might live here in Austin, or at least that's where he filed for divorce earlier this year. 

 

 

[Cartmann99]

59 minutes ago, Howl said:

 Her current ex, Dakota, might live here in Austin, or at least that's where he filed for divorce earlier this year.

There were rumors that Bristol and Dakota moved to Texas so that he could  start a career in politics. I could totally see Sarah whispering to Bristol that if she stayed with Dakota, she could end up being FLOTUS.