The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

General discussion about media bias.  Personally, ever since the election I have been nothing but pissed off at the media.  From FoxNews gagging on Trumps ween day in and day out to CNN trying to find any and everything they can to demonize the right, people forget, WE are who they are pointing their blowholes at.  Things used to be more subtle, CNN used to be more down the middle and Fox wasn't as far to the right.  Now, you can't find an unbiased new source, even PBSNewshour is left leaning.  I guess the Economist is the closest I'll get?  Regardless, I've watched the media on both sides add so much fuel to this fire, THEY are what are really tearing this country apart.  Guess what?  White supremacy is not over taking us (Only hundreds showed up to the biggest “alt-right” meeting in the country.)  Cops are not slaughtering as many unarmed blacks as the media would have you think--This is certainly a sensitive issue that shouldn't be ignored, but it's being blown up with factual inaccuracies that are weakening the argument.  Bringing up alleged sexual abuse from a 17 year old 36 years ago, RIGHT BEFORE he is appointed to the supreme court?  Pretty convenient timing there.  Way to take a movement like #metoo and use it for political gains.  That's not the media though, it's the nonstop coverage on it, like this weak ass accusation will stick long enough to delay this until elections...pretty pathetic.

The right is just as bad (notice how I say just as bad?  That's correct, they aren't worse than the left, they're equally shitty).  Trump has no scandals according to them, they'd rather talk about how evil the Democrats are EVERY FUCKING DAY!  It's terrible how many people I know that have taken sides based on half truths and factual inaccuracies...and if you want to go down the rabbit hole of what source is what and who is presenting the facts, and ultimately and most importantly what their agenda is...you'll be researching all damn day.  This is not what the news is supposed to be.

Your last line is a common mistake I hear all the time and try to point out. What you are describing isn't news, they are commentary shows. News is fact based stories then go to the next. Commentary is a roomful of people giving their opinions on what should be news.

I think there's a media bias towards balance.
That's an intolerable bias. Facts don't have balance, they are facts.
If you report negatively about a serial rapist rapist, you don't put on a serial rapist on your show to have balance.
If trump says something dog shit stupid.. you don't put on a trump mouthpiece for balance.. report that he said something dog shit stupid and move on.

so what ? Don't try to rape people and this shit won't come up when you're trying to get fast tracked onto the supreme court.

Fau nailed it.

The idea that there should be balance at all times, even when one side is trying to put a pedophile in the Senate, or elected officials saying that people who are flipped by law enforcement are bad guys...  it's insanity.

If you look at today's GOP and think that the problem is that the media needs to be calling things down the middle more, you're part of the problem.  You want balance, not truth... and such a situation will inevitably favor the most shameless liars.

I disagree. If you look at CNN news page they interject their opinion into most stories as does Fox ... even to the point they choose to omit information to skew their point. It's really hard to find someone reporting news without doing that. You almost have to read both sides to form any realistic opinion.

^^ Just because you call it a news site doesn't mean it isn't actually commentary. I can call a pile of dog poo an apple pie, would you eat it?

The reason you have a hard time finding it is because of a few reasons:

1) advertising dollars should never be associated with the news. Click bait is what you are dealing with at that point.
2) people are not looking for actual news any more. They are looking for something to validate their own opinions. The "news" said X, about this so I am vindicated in the belief I already had.

A few points.  

There is a difference between bias and agenda.  Every reporter and person has some bias.  You are going to have a side you prefer. News organizations such have CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street journal all have reporters with bias.  And a mix of biases that vary reporter to reporter, but they STRIVE to be fair.  Fox News has agenda —- talking points are handed out.

Got this off facebook. “Journalism is not reporting A said it was sunny and B said it is raining.  Journalism requires you to outside and find out what the fucking weather is”. Reporting Trump lied about X, is not biased reporting.  Having climate change deniers on is as stupid as having a flat-earther on every time NASA launches a satalite.  

There is a difference between having an opinion and making shit up.  Yes Vox is slanted. But it is fact based. It uses hard data from verifiable sources.  Beirtbiet just makes stuff up.

You've made up your mind that he's an attempted rapist.  I don't think he is.  It is way too convenient for this to come out now of all times.

You seem to think those two are mutually exclusive, they aren't.  I want balance and truth, the whole truth not half truths to push an agenda.

I agree, but these commentary shows are parading as news.

Fau is right on.

To take something non-political, anti-vaxers -- they shouldn't get equal time, they shouldn't have a voice.  Journalists should interview the experts, understand the reporting, and report on what is correct.  ...not have a single quack weirdo espousing bullshit next to a scientist that represents 99% of the scientific community. 

But this applies to politics, as well.  If a politician says something verifiably false, it is not smearing them or biased to call them a liar.  It is factual reporting.

If someone tries to do anything illegal to you, it should be reported within a reasonable amount of time. Anything over 30 days is complete bullshit. If you don't do anything about it, at that point it's your fucking problem. This whole circus is nothing but a lefty con job. If these women can't prove their allegations they should start hold them accountable with a flat 5 year sentence of hard labor. That Blasey Ford chick is a nutty flake.

You are correct. However, it's more about omission of factual reporting. A Republican lie will get 10 times the exposure of a Democrat lie. That's the issue.

30-day statute of limitations for rape, with 5 years of hard labor for accusers that can't prove the rape occurred?  Interesting take.

I'm also watching the Handmaid's Tale.

while we're at it, why not jail people for life if they jaywalk and don't self report it

If it came with a side of ice cream, and CNN told me that downing that stinky pile would somehow get Trump impeached?

Probably not...but I might be tempted to hold my nose and dig in. ;)

In regards to the whole media bias topic, I just apply filters to everything I read, regardless of site, and I try to access a local news source to verify things. I think of myself as middle with a left lean and a right cross (I want to help everyone, but I don't want to pay for it), so I just assume that every source I read has its own agenda.

I think both of you fail to realize that it's been 35 years. And now she's saying that Monday is too early to testify. 35 years wasn't long enough? You need more time? LMFAO, what a joke.

Like I said, if someone does something to you and you don't report it promptly, then fuck you, it's your problem. False accusations shouldn't be tolerated.  

Ok,petrol on the fire :-[,but IMO it does show a different Bias.Woman alleges rape in the past,and immediately discredited (or called out "why now?",or called out for something in return (money,discredit the accuser etc))),but man reports being abused by the priests many years ago he's instantly believed,and the priest needs to be strung up.

Enough fuel flammage.. ::)

IMO
I don't watch any cable news,24 hours cable news channels are NOTNEWS period.They are all about the ratings,clickbait articles,clickbait type headlines,and making money off their advertisers.It's the outrage,shock you,Tune in for this,you'll never believe this to fill the 24 hour day,

I agree with Fau about the Balance B.S.,but disagree with they should bring in "experts" as most of these cable channels already do bring in people they claim are "experts".They make their own "experts".

I feel the bigger problems are locally...
I have to go here because to me this is vitally important because of where I live I see the impact.Even my overly conservative Republican landlord has gotten mad,frustrated with this locally.

I don't give a fuck if you disagree,and call bullshit on it...These issues have happened mainly in the past 2 years with the current administration,and the current F.C.C. big company schills.

1.) 2017 They changed the rule to allow one company/owner,can own multiple media outlets in 1 market area...( 2 T.V. stations,radio stations,plus newspaper type thing)
https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8039366/fcc-weakens-rules-on-owning-multiple-tv-stations-newspapers (https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8039366/fcc-weakens-rules-on-owning-multiple-tv-stations-newspapers)

This has hit us hard locally recently...
(Now,as the local Fox station is now being bought by the company that run the CBS affiliate,and plans are slowly leaking out on how they plan on merging the two)
All my local T.V. stations are now owned by/run 2 media companies.The NBC,and ABC affiliates were officially brought together just over a year ago,they somewhat skirted the rule for a few years,as the NBC station only managed the "business" operations

In the NBC/ABC side the NBC side fired almost every one of the ABC local affiliate (camera/newsroom behind the scenes people,most of the on air talent) and now broadcasts the the NBC affiliates news on 2 stations.They called everyone in from the ABC affiliate that they were firing on a Saturday afternoon last August (2017),fired them. They did it all hush,hush till the newspaper started picking up people bitching on social media the following Monday or Tuesday. They quickly threw together promos claiming we're bigger now with 2 stations,and much more capable of more local coverage,blah,blah,blah. The NBC affiliate was already spending the majority of its "Local" newscast,on the richer small towns,and suburbs.


(This goes back to the balance issue,as the bias towards the local,well we're a conservative republican area.)
Politically IMO this is even worse being a very red area. When Obama was president,they'd talk about a clip,and show Obama say something.Then they'd ask the all the the local Republicans  representatives about what he "said". They got 2 minutes to rebutte what Obama said...

Now Trump,they cover the rallies,and controversies,and then ask the local Republican representatives also.Then call the local Democratic office,to give a statement,and tend to read a social media post,etc.

These type of scenarios are going through the roof here locally,not just on the the national figures,presidents,senators,etc.Our State,County,and city issues are getting more,and more one sided coverage.Our recent problems with our Governor were covered the same way,as the Trump/Obama examples. Our County Commissioner/herriff,State auditor battle recently same type of coverage.

2.) Killing Neutrality- Again I only have 2 companies that supply high speed internet access here.At&T and mediacom,and with huge media mergers,and acquisitions.It's going to be almost impossible to find News.

2 companies for internet,2 companies controlling the T.V. stations (and have partnerships with some radio stations),and I'm lucky enough to still have a local paper (still have a slant/bias)..

LOL ... I think this is most people but many people don't want to admit it.

Kinda like, "We need more homeless shelters!  Wait. What? Hell no, not in my neighborhood.  Do you know what that would do to my home value?"   

I never knew you were such a strong defender of Harvey Weinstein!

pondwater, you really have no empathy for people who would have had extreme trauma happen to them. Not surprised you're more right-wing. People who have this happen to them rarely report it for numerous reasons. Some of it is ridicule, they think no one will believe them, and in some extreme cases (such as this), their life is ruined with death threats. It's not a shocker that people don't always promptly report this type of stuff.

You know what's a 100% effective solution for homelessness?
give people homes

How many have you bought homes for?   

how many fires have you fought?
how many murderers have you caught or prosecuted?
how many people have you driven in your ambulance to the hospital?

don't ask stupid qauestions

Who brought him up and what does he have to do with any of this? Are you attempting to deflect the conversation? If not, please explain.

Do you really have no empathy for people wrongly accused? I thought it was innocent until proven guilty. The fact of the matter is that some skank can pull this bullshit after 10, 20, or 30 years and ruin someone's life. That's why it's vitally important that these matters are reported in a timely fashion. There's virtually no way to prove something after a certain amount of time has passed, it's all just judicial masturbation. This flakey nut can't prove anything. Hell, she can't even provide any crucial details.

And who do you think is going to pay for these homes? And if they're giving them away, I want one too. Hell, free houses for everyone. Can I get a pool and wet bar in the backyard?

Kavanough is not on trial, he is at a job interview.  There is a very serious question as to whether he has the moral turpitude to be making decisions that will affect all americans.  Lets pause and investigate the allegations before he is given a lifetime appointment.

There is nothing to investigate. It's 35 fucking years ago with someone who can't remember any crucial details. This is nothing but a con job circus. If you you people can't see this is a set up, then you're crazy as hell.....

I'll be the first to address the elephant in the room. If Kavanough did do what she says in high school do you really think that disqualifies him for anything?  I mean .... she isn't even saying he did rape her. She is saying he forced himself on her for small period of time. He groped her, gave up and left. I can't speak for for the younger crowd but I know the older crowd has experienced similar situations and moved on. I really don't see it as a big deal as it was teenagers doing stupid stuff as that what's teenagers do. It was a minor who has proven does not have this tendency as an adult ... according to his former girlfriends and lovers.  I also didn't think it was anyone's business but Bill and Hillary when he got busted for doing Monica. We are all sinners and have done some bad things if we are being honest. As long as we have grown or it's not part of the job I don't know how these moral issues matter.

The hilarity of "stupid qauestions"  aside, I have served my entire country in the military, and currently serve my entire country in a federal law enforcement agency. So all in all, I have contributed substantially to society for over 30 years.  Thanks for giving me the opportunity to brag while answering your question.  

 And for a person to accuse someone of "stupid qauestions" when your initial response to solving the homeless crisis was to buy them all homes is pretty classic.   So you think it is a pretty good idea that people who work for a living have to pay a mortgage, pay for homeowner's insurance, pay property tax, etc., but homeless people should have all those things given to them is astoundingly short sighted and unrealistic.  By the way, nothing personal, I'm just arguing with you.  

I guess if we're going to harp on typos, then this discussion is style over substance.

It would be less expensive for tax-payers to subsidize basic housing for the homeless than to cover the associated costs of their homelessness. It would also allow them to get and keep employment.

Here's an example of a cost analysis of homelessness:
http://homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/homelessness-101/cost-analysis-homelessness
Granted it's Canadian, therefore take the medical costs and increase them for the US, since the homeless won't have insurance and will use primarily emergency rooms.

here's a link from a US organization with similar conclusions:
https://endhomelessness.org/study-data-show-that-housing-chronically-homeless-people-saves-money-lives/
there's an interactive map with regional studies.

So to answer your question, i think it's a very good idea to provide homes for the homeless, it's much less expensive to taxpayers than having them be homeless.

You could give them a nice house and they wouldn't even take care of it. Go take a look at section 8 and HUD houses and apartments. Looks like a 3rd world country in the majority of the cases. The majority of them don't give a flying fuck.

yes it disqualifies him.  Adultry and consenual sex between adults doesn’t bother me so I don’t care about Monica.  otoh, what Paula Jones alleged is troubling.  Likewise I dont care about Stormy.  She consented.    or if a russian whored peed on him.  I do care that Trump would walk into the Miss America dressing rooms to spy on naked women and bragged that he assaulted women (grab them by the pussy).

I wouldn't even entertain that shit. He'll be confirmed shortly................

If perjury for consensual sex acts between adults is disqualifying, perjury for sexual assault is definitely so.

But I guess it's good to get stuff like this on the record.  He tried to rape her but he was interrupted and didn't succeed, so no harm no foul!

I think you are drastically underestimating the number of people who don't want others to get help even if it doesn't personally cost them a dime.  For example, if I said that your taxes wouldn't be raised a dime, but we were going to finance a (deficit-neutral) program of building new homeless shelters across the nation via larger taxes on the top 0.5%, I'm pretty sure you would immediately object.

For some, the important part is not whether or not it personally costs them any money, but whether the wrong kind of people are being helped.

---

To get back on topic, I do find it rather interesting that the correlation between people who love to say "facts don't care about your feelings" and the people who love to complain about "biased media being unfair" is almost 1:1.

snowflakes everywhere!

Do you have proof of that? Does anyone? 35 years? Haha, good luck. He'll be confirmed shortly. Spider, I worry about you. I can't say we're friends, but I'm kind of worried about you. Your thought process is not based in reality. You guys have 110% more chance of the TX cop getting the chair than blocking the SCOTUS nominee. Your best bet is the other thread at this point, LMFAO.

But I could be wrong........

CF's point was that even if he did it, it doesn't matter, which is what I was responding to: the total abdication of morality from the party of family values.

If responding to a given premise makes you doubt my grip on reality, I recommend you stay away from televisions and movie theaters... you may find them terrifying.

FAU, being a Libertarian myself, I can definitely appreciate your concept of limiting the impact to taxpayers.  I am going to reserve judgment on the validity of the web sites that you are citing because statistics are obviously manipulated by whoever is paying for the "study".    The fact that the two websites you referenced are called "endhomelessness.org" and "homelesshub.ca" make me a little suspicious of the statistical validity of their numbers.  Also, given the fact that a high percentage of the homeless population suffer from significant mental illness, I'm not sure about their ability to get and maintain employment.  I definitely agree that something needs to be done about homelessness, I just don't think that giving them homes is the answer.  The same lack of life skills (or mental illness as is often the case) that led to them being homeless in the first place would not be fixed with a free home.  As someone else on here pointed out, a look at Section 8 housing is pretty illustrative that giving something away doesn't make the recipients suddenly responsible adults. 

Why do you not care about Cory Booker, Keith Ellison, Ted Kennedy and many others? Bill Clinton has women claiming actual rape and then some for groping yet he is the belle of the ball for Democrats.

As well ... I dare say most young men have grabbed a butt, touched a boob or tried to kiss a girl who didn't want it. Especially 30-40 years ago when it wasn't even thought of as nothing more than being yelled at. Sexual assault in 1980 is not the same as it is today. It's kind of like trying a man today for owning slaves in 1850 (assuming he were still alive)

"whatabout"

The main problem with this guy is he's being appointed to the Supreme Court. He will actually be ruling on things kinda important to women. Women have a lot riding on him NOT getting the job.

CF, you have convinced me: the Democrats should not nominate Keith Ellison or Cory Booker for the Supreme Court.  (President would still be OK though, based on the current occupant.)

Not sure why you are reaching back to the 20th century for guys who are retired or dead, though.  "Democrats claim to be against racism but they supported Woodrow Wilson!"

A big part of the problem is that both of the main political parties lay claim to the moral high ground.  History has taught us that politicians (regardless of party affiliation) are generally some of the most hypocritical, lying, pathological deviants to be found.  Although the clergy give them a good run for their money.    There is a well documented history extending back decades....make that centuries.....of politicians (and their supporters) ranting publicly about the sins of their counterparts while being oddly silent when their own are accused of the exact same things.  Hypocrisy is one of the first words that come to my mind in any discussion about politics. 

Why? Because you are an extremist. No matter the conversation you take it to extremes so I figured I would reach back to an extreme date in history to make the point that times change and you can't hold people accountable for something that wasn't wrong at the time it was committed. He would have been in more trouble for reckless driving and causing a wreck ... and I wouldn't hold that against him 35 years later either. Politics aside I'm pretty sure you know that.

Funny to me that anon sources said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein went to the White House to resign today while others said he was being fired by Trump. Turns out he went to a staff meeting and neither thing happened. Who'd have imagined those anonymous sources would turn out to be incorrect? 

Are you saying that attempting to violently rape a girl "wasn't wrong" in the 1980s?  Again, let's get this on the record.

But to address your point: Democrats are not and would not nominate Bill Clinton for anything in 2018, while your team is happy to push alleged pedophiles and rapists through now with the "everyone did it back then!" excuse.

Nope. That was illegal back then. Based on her words this doesn't appear to be anything like that except by people looking to exploit the situation.

I think the biggest question I have is why would someone who isn't politically motivated and was "raped" go to their representative and not the police.  The second question I had would be why would that representative sit on that information until nothing else worked to stall a SC nominee. Yep .... those are the first questions I'd need answered prior to believing anything that came out of the pussycat wearer's mouth. 

Amen, brother!   Most occupations that afford a person any amount of control over other people are usually going to be rife with hypocrisy and corruption.

The White House tried to put out a story that Rosenstein was resigning. Guess it didn't work out for them. They really want him to resign.

Trump wants everyone who won't kiss his ring to resign (or be jailed), and everyone else he wants to sit straight up at attention when he walks in the room, like proper subjects.

I'm sure the White House ran to CNN to give them anonymous information. Good call on you for recognizing that!!  ::)

another woman to come forward. I guess the good news about Kavanough is that he only attacked Democrats with ties to George Soros. Republican women are pretty safe from him.

Limited sample size... You should probably wait until all of his victims come forward before making that determination.

So the UN laughed at Trump today during his speech, where he proclaimed in his two years he's done almost more than any administration before him. Of course everyone knows that's a lie. Man, to have the UN laugh at you during your speech. I wonder how the media is going to be bias against Trump for just reporting this.

Mark the day down. Trump was finally factually correct, other countries are laughing at the United States.

Well, what do you expect most of them have law degrees. (Apologies to SC Fin Fan).

I read in the Daily Mail that Trump seemed to be reading his speech for the first time and appeared to be a bit surprised at what he just read/said ... so he made an off the cuff comment. That is what elicited the laugh according to the article. I haven't seen it but the Daily Mail has no problem attacking Trump so I have to believe there is some truth to it.

Trump claimed that in remarks that were written for him that 'in less than two years my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.'

As if reading the speech for the first time, he chimed in with a, 'so true,' leading to laughter from international leaders.

He smiled, taking in stride, and proclaimed, 'didn't expect that reaction but that's OK,' before moving on the extraordinary progress he says he's overseen in the U.S.


CNN's version - "In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country," Trump said, as he does.
"So true," said Trump, clearly caught by surprise by the laughter. "I didn't expect that reaction, but that's OK," he added to more laughter and some applause.

The only problem with that theory is they have an unlimited amount of funds (Soros) to drag this out. We may never get a full list to all of his "victims" whose witnesses deny anything they are saying. LOL

Victims? I didn't know he had any victims. I haven't seen any actual proof that he's done anything to anyone. Yes, we have allegations, hearsay, rumors, and conjecture from plenty of people. But actual proof? Oh wait, the lefty loony bin at TDMMC has determined that he has Victims. Well by all means, lock his ass up, give him life in prison.

LMAO, if some of you people knew how you sounded you would lay off the drugs and alcohol.

Probably because it's irrelevant to begin with. Since it's Trump they're going to boost it up, but if it was Obama or Clinton it would be a small irrelevant non story like it is in the first place.

Brushing aside the fact that you just ended a post about a sexual assault victim with "LOL," I might add that with all the money that Trump has raked in since taking office (hmmm), surely Trump could simply just pay those women more?  Or maybe just grab 'em by the pussy and threaten them or something...

The attorney general may suspend him for three months if he does any crotch grabbing.  Especially if he's taking an Uber ride.

As soon as he said his first comment about doing more in his admin than most in the history of this country he got some audible laughs.... Then he made his remark that he didn't expect that reaction. You should see the video.

Why should he watch the video when he can just have Fox tell him what he thinks? ;)

I'd just like to see if we can meet at the same place with video evidence. I just saw Nikki Haily (Hailey?) say on Fox News that the laughter was meant as a sign of respect because he's so honest. I wanna see what CF DolFan come up with. :)

You reach for more 💩 than anyone I know.

obviously I was laughing at the fact “victims” and witnesses keep popping up and then disappearing when pressed and not the sexual assault. BTW ... Trumps net worth has gone down significantly since taking office. Want to know which way Obama and Clinton’s bank account went despite only making less than $400,00 a year? Even Bernie’s net worth has increased by many millions even though he makes less. Hahaha

i just watched it on CNN. They didn’t laugh until he ad-libbed the “so true” comment. Some even started clapping. Either way ... it doesn’t appear to be a big deal in support or disrespect. Just like everything these days ... much ado about nothing except politics. Both sides politicize everything.

He said "so true" BECAUSE they were already laughing. Please take a 2nd look.

Nope...

See, this is the exercise I wanted to try. It's very clear to anyone listening that people laughed after Trump's statement of "most accomplished" yada, yada, yada. He clearly said "So true" AFTER the laughter started. Since pondwater and CF DolFan can't even agree on this very simple video evidence, it's clear that there isn't any reason to think they can think straight on anything. I mean, I already knew this is what they would conclude on, but I was just a tad bit interested in seeing if I was wrong. Guess not. :/ So sad.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/donald-trump-un-speech-laugh/index.html

I just did and I still stand by previous statement. They laughed and then started clapping after he said he wasn't expecting that.

Considering the way he was treated by them after his speech by foreign dignitaries I think it's safe to assume they at least respect him while in his presence. 

Mild laughter starts at 42-43 seconds into that video after he says "so true". Louder laughter erupts a 48-50 seconds when he says, "I didn't expect that reaction". Are you people on LSD or something?

I'll reserve judgment until I view it myself. I may be one of the few people not to see it yet.

Wow. You two are no doubt Trump supporters. Lol. I could show you Trump saying 2 + 2 = 5 and you'd say that's just alternative math for 4. You two are some dumb individuals. There's no stepping around it at this point. You two are just plain old dumb.

...what?  That doesn't even make any sense.

In your version of this story, when Trump said, "I didn't expect that reaction," what reaction was he referring to?

You're trying to claim that they didn't laugh until after he responded to the laughter.  That's nonsense.

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense to you. It seems pretty black and white in my previous comments.


1) he said "so true" as an off the comment remark to his previous comments
2) a small group laughed at that "so true" comment
3) he then said "I didn't expect that"
4) a much larger group laughed at that and even started clapping.

Two questions for ya, CF, and if you could see your way through the political curves and give me a straight answer, I would appreciate it.

1) Have you ever seen any human being (not President, but any human being) who spends more time talking about how awesome he is than Donald Trump?

2) If you ever actually did meet anyone who spent that much time talking about how awesome they are, would you really want to spend any time at all around them?

1) Have you ever seen any human being (not President, but any human being) who spends more time talking about how awesome he is than Donald Trump? No. Well not outside of professional sports

2) If you ever actually did meet anyone who spent that much time talking about how awesome they are, would you really want to spend any time at all around them? I'm not sure with Trump honestly. His public persona is that of an ass but he seems to get along really well with people behind the scenes. As you are aware he was great friends with many of his biggest opponents prior to the election and really the only thing that has changed is his political status.

Look ... I don't disagree Trump is an ass and says some really stupid stuff. Much of what he says reminds me of "my dad can beat up your dad" conversations we had as kids. It's very childish. I wish he'd stay off twitter and not respond to criticism, quit talking so highly about himself in every speech and so on. What I do like about him is he does what he says he is going to do regardless of the push back. Popular opinion isn't his motivation as is most politicians. Although his tactics are a bit brash they seem to work out in the end.

So your position is that they didn't laugh at his claim (note: they did, which is what caused him to interrupt himself and ad-lib "so true")... no, they actually laughed at his insistence that his claim is true.

There's a difference?

Talk about bias. Feinstein just implied that the burden of proof should not be on the accuser? Up is down and left is right in liberal la-la land, LMFAO.

I think his "so true" comment was an off the cuff remark about what he just said as no one was laughing at the time. He does this constantly and in almost every speech he has given. He is not a stick to the script guy and has been criticized for it on many occasions.

I've been reading reports the last couple of days that the never Trumpers of the Republicans are starting to think he is the man for the job after all. The way Kavanough has been treated has angered many including the democratic leaning Bushes.

Just to be clear on your source... ;)

hahaha ....seriously, you don't have any new jokes you can use?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2018/09/26/the_assault_on_kavanaugh_is_proving_trump_voters_right_454260.html

https://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/rich-lowry-assault-on-kavanaugh-validates-trump/article_488bb7c8-6875-553c-8d3b-63c0c2865da0.html

https://nypost.com/2018/09/24/the-assault-on-kavanaugh-is-proving-trump-voters-right/

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/09/26/rich-lowry-assault/

I can't help it...you come across so consistently as a far right version of the Stepford Wives that I figured I'd go with the old joke, just to avoid putting a strain on your programming.

Has anyone been able to watch the testimony today? Just glancing at a few articles it sounds like she was very credible and Fox News was even saying so. What that means in terms of a vote, who knows?

Watching it right now. This lady is a kook as far as I'm concerned.

But you just admitted they laughed loudly when he insisted it was true!

Or are you claiming that they were laughing at Trump's verbal tics, and that the laughter had nothing to do with the content of what he was saying?

I agree that Kavanaugh should definitely not be convicted and imprisoned unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed this assault.

However, this hearing is about whether he deserves a promotion at his job... so the standard of proof is much lower.  If it's 50/50 whether he attempted to rape a girl (to say nothing of the other accusations), someone else should be nominated.  There is no shortage of qualified candidates for the position.

There's your problem right there. If they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. then he should be confirmed. Witch hunt...

I'm not so sure. If all we need is one person to stand up and say "blah, blah, blah" without any physical or circumstantial proof then no one is safe. This tactic will be used as a weapon from this day forward. I believe this for two reasons. 1) everyone has something in their past especially if we use childhood and 2) It doesn't take much for people to come forward for the fame, experiences and money that come from it. 

We just may be looking at the end of the process.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg nailed it ...
"The way it was was right. The way it is is wrong," Ginsburg said. "I wish I could wave a magic wand and have it go back the way it was."

"Think of Justice Scalia, who’s certainly a known character," she continued, adding that he was confirmed unanimously. "That’s the way it should be...instead of what it’s become, which is a highly-partisan show. The Republicans move in lockstep, and so do the Democrats."

But if they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then not only should be be rejected, but he should go to prison.  That's the standard of proof for a criminal conviction, not denial of a promotion.

So I guess you're saying that he should either be confirmed to the Supreme Court or imprisoned... no middle ground?

So I guess under this theory, Democrats used it (unsuccessfully) for Thomas, forgot about it for Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch, and then remembered it again?

The fact that Republicans had a list of 65 women lined up in support of Kavanaugh, but not Gorsuch, tells you they already knew where the bodies were buried.

You have real comprehension issues. No one is talking about criminal convictions. I'm saying that if they can't prove that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt, then he should be confirmed. If they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it, then he should be rejected. It's pretty simple common sense. But I know you, like most la-la land liberals, like to blur the line between common sense and fantasy land.

You're the one saying that it needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard is almost exclusively applied to criminal convictions.

When your employee applies for a promotion, and then someone comes forward saying, "This guy was a drug dealer in college," you don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to say, "You know what?  I think we'll promote someone else to this position." Reasonable doubt is plenty enough.

An accusation 35 years later with no proof and foggy memory is not even reasonable doubt. It's simply an accusation.

The funny part is that if the shoe was on the other foot and this same thing was happening to a democrat nominee, you would be calling this what it actually is, a witch hunt. More Spider-Dan hypocrisy, LMAO...

Not only that, everyone she said was there denies it and her friend even went as far as to say she didn't know Kavanough or remember him ever being at anything she attended.

Graham just went apeshit on the Democrats. 100% spot on...

I did not see that coming from Graham. He caries a lot on both sides.  I'm glad he chose to speak rather than have that lady do it. All of the Republicans should have done the same.

I'd say that's what the hearings are for.

If only there were a recent example of a high profile Democrat (on the Senate Judiciary Committee, even!) accused of sexual assault by someone who is clearly a partisan operative (say, a right-wing radio host).  Then we could see how the Democrats responded to those accusations, and whether they insisted that he resign.

Sorry, family values conservatives don't get to play the hypocrisy card while President Grab 'Em By The Pussy is in office.

This isn't unusual though. Do you have any idea how many high school parties I attended where I don't know who was there, especially if I didn't know them? It seems the friend should recall the event or at least something happened though. Has she commented about that?

She knew nothing about it. Apparently Dr Ford says she didn't tell anyone about her rape until 2012 so she never informed one of her best friends who was at the party.

If both witnesses are credible, no evidence corroborates her claim (and much refutes it), and he unequivocally denies the charge . . .

He's an innocent man wrongly accused.

Well, there's another person who was allegedly in the room and can testify one way or the other.  But for some reason, Republicans don't want to subpoena him.  Hmmm.

I think we should create a new government organization to try to get to the bottom of claims like this.  Like a federal department of investigations, or something.  I'm sure if such an entity existed, Republicans would surely be on board with getting it involved.  I vaguely remember another recent investigation into a Democrat seeking high office, but it was probably too inconspicuous for anyone else to remember.

2012 was still six years before Kavanaugh was nominated, so I'm not sure this makes the point you think it does.

Maybe she used the same time machine the Democrats used to go back in time and plant the fake birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper right after Obama was born.

Ummm ... the point was HER witness from that time doesn't know anything about it. I don't know how you keep that from a close friend but I've never been a female who was raped. Unfortunately from where I sit it seems suspicious as my best friends knew everything I did.

When she did tell she never told anyone it was him... including her therapist. 

Are you guys defending Brett Kavanaugh, or Bill Cosby/Harvey Weinstein?  The logic seems to be the same: if you didn't say anything back then, it must not be true.

And while we're on the subject: what did the conservatives posting here think about Al Franken last year?  According to the standard you're offering in this thread, he should have never resigned because the women accusing him were clearly lying.

That's why your claims of hypocrisy ring hollow.  In 2016 you guys were still screaming about Juanita Broaddrick, two decades after Bill Clinton's last run for office.  But when it comes to Donald Trump, Roy Moore, and Brett Kavanaugh, you stand resolutely by your guys because every accusation is a Democrat plot.  You want to talk about hypocrisy?  Tell me what happened to Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer, Al Franken, and Eric Schneiderman.

Wait, let me guess: it's not hypocrisy at all, because allegations against Democrats are always true, while allegations against Republicans are always dastardly lies.

I always liked Franken but wasn't it pictures that did him in?

There was one picture, taken during a 2006 comedy tour, of him smiling at the camera while pretending to grope (read: not actually touching) a sleeping castmember.
That castmember later went on to be a right-wing radio host, and 10 years after the fact, made a public statement with the picture included.
The first person to break the story was Roger Stone, a well-known Republican political operative and former Trump campaign advisor.

To put this in perspective, imagine that Kathy Griffin revealed a picture of Kavanaugh from the '90s, showing him pretending to hump her (without touching her) while she was asleep on a comedy tour.  (And also: that there is video of Griffin physically groping other male castmembers during the live show.)  Next, imagine that the person to break this story before everyone else was Rosie O'Donnell.

Now try to imagine Republicans calling for Kavanaugh to withdraw based on the above.

You can stop laughing now.

I realize Spider you couldn't see the sky as blue if Donald Trump said it was so the fact you keep putting words or situations in my mouth to appear to win a stupid argument is not surprising. Al Franken did his own self in. He stepped down. He wasn't forced out but anyone.

If you think this case and the Cosby case are similar then there is no sense in discussing it. You are a loony bird.

The good news in all of this is her Go Fund me account is heading towards $1,000,000 so she is going to be compensated well for her public misery unnecessarily caused buy  Feinstein and Co. At least ... that's the public amount. I wonder if she's getting other kick backs as well? 

The republicans are clearly just going to party-line vote this guy in, they don't give a rats ass about the ethics or morals of this.

Then they'll get voted out of office the next time they're up for election .. that's the way this plays out

It's kind of funny to me that I see this exactly opposite of what you just said. Like I mentioned yesterday ... the anti Trump Republicans seem to be rallying behind him now. We'll see who is right when it comes time to vote.

(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-827dfd52ccddbc1b66fb73c823f0cf29)

Franken resigned after Democrats said he needed to step down.  So when pondwater claimed that liberals are hypocrites because we would be defending Kavanaugh if he were a Dem, there is already recent evidence that that's false.

Unlike the party of family values, Democrats at least occasionally display a sense of morality.  You guys have fully abandoned any pretense of having core values; the only thing you care about now is owning the libs.  How many times have you personally praised Trump for how much he infuriates the left?

I disagree. I think Franken took one for the team.

Republicans refused to vote or hold hearings on Obama's candidate. That was a political move first used by Democrats. Democrats have one upped them by declaring even before Trump nominated someone that they would do whatever to block them. Apparently this means dragging innocent people through the mud, on both sides, for political gain. The stalling tactics used by Democrats and leaks have turned this into a public nightmare that didn't need to happen. Sadly ... it only happened because of a quest for power. That's actually pretty evil to sacrifice innocent people for political gain.

I think former Bernie Sanders voter An0maly put it very well.  "Liberals were cool because they were accepting and loving. The last two years have been nothing but hate. Hate mixed with racism and sexism all in the name of standing up to racism and sexism? This is the Twilight zone!"

Apples and oranges. There was photographic evidence in the Franken fiasco, he didn't categorically deny all of them, and issued apologies. If you don't deny you did something and subsequently issue apologies then you basically admit that you did something wrong. Then add in the photo and it was basically over for Franken.

On the other hand, you have Kavanaugh who has denied everything from the start and hasn't apologized for anything because he has nothing to apologize for. NO EVIDENCE, FOGGY MEMORY, AND VERY LIMITED FACTS.

Franken=proof of wrongdoing
Kavanaugh=no proof of wrongdoing

See how that works?

Kind of like after Obama won. You only cared about owning the conservatives. Remember, elections have consequences.

/thread

Interesting perspective from the prosecutor who was hired to be there.

“Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere near a courtroom,” one source told Fox News. She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she wouldn't even seek a search warrant. 

The "photographic evidence" was a picture of him NOT touching her (body-armored!) chest.

First of all, he did deny them; you may not have noticed because he did not scream that they were vile partisan smears. And his "apologies" were if whatever he did made them uncomfortable.

But this gets to the heart of the issue: the Republican response is ALWAYS "This person is a politically motivated Democrat liar." So using your logic, the people who shout "LIAR!" the loudest - from Trump, to Roy Moore, to Kavanaugh - are the most innocent.  Even when they are on tape admitting to assault.

But keep in mind your original point: liberals are hypocrites because we would also stand behind one of their own who was accused of assault even if he denied it.  Franken proves otherwise. The right would never demand a resignation from one of their own based on the words of am alleged victim.

No, unlike you guys with Trump, I never had to make excuses about how "Obama is no boy scout" or "I don’t want to be like him. I will never behave like him." The left hasn't had to abandon its core principles all in the service of pissing off conservatives; we're already the party of Marxism and sodomy, so it's easy to stick to our values.

Spider ... do you really believe Democrats are only doing what they have been doing because they are concerned for Dr Ford and not because it is a good political move?

They have just announced they are going forward with the week long investigation into current allegations and Mark Judge has agreed to speak with investigators. I have no issue with this because it doesn't allow for an open ended of accusations from every crazy of the week.

In the same sense that Republicans only cared about one attack on an American embassy ever, sure.  You take political victories when you can get them.

But the difference is that Democrats will apply that standard to themselves, too.  The idea of Republican Senators pressuring a prominent Republican to resign based solely on 1) accusations from an alleged victim and 2) evidence that does not show the offense being alleged is... total lunacy.  It's completely impossible.

You didn’t actually answer the question (not sure what blaming Republicans for something else is an answer to a yes or no question)but it lis looks like you are saying no, it’s only a political move. At least we can agree on something. 

Btw ... until Democrats the out trash like Keith Ellison then the only fingers they need to be pointing is at themselves. The selective outrage is well. You know.

My answer is "it's both." But importantly, Democrats also care about such allegations even when made towards their own members, whereas Republicans only pretend to care about them when they are leveled at Democrats.

Regarding Ellison, I would ask if we can agree that both Ellison and Kavanaugh should step down (kind of like Al Franken and Roy Moore, the last time you guys made this disingenuous argument), but I think we know your answer to that.  Even after I listed multiple Democrats who stepped down, the answer is that all resignations shall be (D) and never (R).

No problem on Moore although everything went pretty quiet after the election. I do have problems with  Kavanaugh though as so far it’s based solely on one woman’s accusations. To further help him her own witnesses do not have a memory of it as well. Until there is some sort of reasonable proof that something has occurred, and there is zero so far, I will not deny him.

the way Kavanaugh  was hysterical at the senate hearing would cause me not to hire him in a job interview. Move on, get a new republican rubber stamp on the court, there's plenty of them, does it have to be an emotional drunk ?

My wife was raped.  She didn’t tell her best friends.

After what he and his family have been through .. lucky he didn't bring a gun. I see that his demeanor, the one week deadline and the FBI being controlled are the Democrats new hysterics. They will never be happy and is why giving this week for an FBI probe is worthless. When you get someone like Lindsey Graham pissed off then you've really gone too far! hahahaha

It's not about that. They don't even remember the party or being in that situation.  I believe her friend wrote that she had never even met Kavanough.

Interesting memo from Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford with soft balls last week during a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a five-page memo that was released on Sunday that outlines why she would not bring criminal charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Mitchell's memo notes nine significant problems with Ford's testimony and underscores that her case is "even weaker" than a "he said, she said" case."A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove," Mitchell states. "But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."

Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo:

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year

2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
She does not remember how she got to the party.
She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:

Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

6. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault:

According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.
In her letter, she stated, “I locked the door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.”
Kavanaugh or Mark Judge turned up the music in the bedroom so that the people downstairs could not hear her scream. She testified that, after the incident, she ran into the bathroom, locked the door, and heard them going downstairs. But she maintained that she could not hear their conversation with others when they got downstairs. Instead, she testified that she “assum[ed]” a conversation took place.
Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.
According to The Washington Post’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.
She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.
In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.
In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.
Dr. Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s.

7. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory:

Dr. Ford struggled to remember her interactions with the Washington Post.
Dr. Ford could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.
She does not remember whether she showed the Post reporter the therapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post. But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.
She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6.
Dr. Ford said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post that she “ha[d] therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post’s tipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before contacting the Post to determine whether the mentioned anything about the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in her therapist’s office.
Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.
Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.
She claimed originally that she wished for her story to remain confidential, but the person operating the tipline at the Washington Post was the first person other than her therapist or husband to whom she disclosed the identity of her alleged attacker. She testified that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president.” She did not contact the Senate, however, because she claims she “did not know how to do that.” She does not explain why she knew how to contact her Congresswoman but not her Senator.
Dr. Ford could not remember if she was being audio- or video-recorded when she took the polygraph. And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral.
It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.

8. Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions:

She maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies “fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and … work.” She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.
Note too that her attorneys refused a private hearing or interview. Dr. Ford testified that she was not “clear” on whether investigators were willing to travel to California to interview her. It therefore is not clear that her attorneys ever communicated Chairman Grassley’s offer to send investigators to meet her in California or wherever she wanted to meet to conduct the interview.
She alleges that she struggled academically in college, but she has never made any similar claim about her last two years of high school.
It is significant that she used the word “contributed” when she described the psychological impact of the incident to the Washington Post. Use of the word “contributed” rather than “caused” suggests that other life events may have contributed to her symptoms. And when questioned on that point, she said that she could think of “nothing as striking as” the alleged assault.

9. The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account:

This didn't happen for Neil Gorsuch, even after the whole merrick garland debacle. He turned out not to be shady AF and even tho they disagreed with him we didn't get this circus

He didn't tilt the power of the bench. If you rememebr the Dems did everything they could to stop including not voting. The Republicans put him in on their own. This time ... Dems vowed to stop the nomination before one was even announced making it really, really hard to take any concern from them as legit.

to be fair, the republicans stole that appointment, and then changed senate rules to confirm him at 50 votes rather than 60. seems like they're now scared that if the democrats get into power in the senate they would block any and all trump court nominations (which they will, and following the republican example, should)

The funny part is that she doesn't know which house the party was at. Obviously, it would have to belong to one of the people she named unless they broke into a neighbor's house for the gathering. She didn't know who drove her to the party or from the party. Let's get real, there was no party, no house, or no driver.

So the prosecutor who Republicans selected to interrogate Ford thinks she doesn't have a case?  I'm shocked, shocked I say.  Next, you'll be telling me that Ford's attorney thinks her case is actually very strong!

Consider how it would look if the GOP's handpicked prosecutor said, "Well, I think Ford's testimony is very compelling and credible." (You know, like Trump did.) That would basically be a hammer blow to Kavanaugh.

If your own counsel thinks your opponent has a solid and well-founded case, you're in big trouble.

Is this sarcasm?

Or are you sincerely saying that announcing opposition before a nomination has even been made is illegitimate and a nakedly political abuse of the process?

it was almost like the new senate majority leader stating that his entire goal was to make a president only have 1 term... who would do such a thing .. i'm aghast .. aghast !!

Yes. You can't say "I'm not going to be impartial and do whatever it takes to stop this" and then come up with something and complain people have a hard time believing you. We all knew it, as we do now about Dems trying to keep the investigation going for weeks, so when you admit it that makes it even harder to believe. This means you would need proof, real proof, and you don't have that. In fact .... you don't even have bad proof.

When the American Bar Association says that there needs to be an investigation before confirmation, perhaps those without any knowledge of judiciary procedure should just relax in the cheap seats and enjoy the show...

A committee for the American Bar Association that evaluates the professional qualifications of judges said it still stands behind Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The association’s president urged the Senate Judiciary Committee late Thursday to stall a confirmation vote until the FBI has conducted an investigation into Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that he sexually assaulted her.

The letter was not seen by the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary before it was sent to the panel, committee chairman Paul Mosley wrote in a separate letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Friday.

The Standing Committee “acts independently” of the association’s leadership, he said.

Not necessarily. When I was in high school we threw a party at my friend's aunt's. She wasn't there but was fully aware we were doing it. Resourceful kids can always find a place for a party without living there or breaking in.

Get real, there was no party, no house, or no driver.

I purposely left that part out because I don't know. I'm just pointing out that kids do party in places they don't live.

Are you talking about Brett Kavanaugh or Merrick Garland?

And yet another shoe drops (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566):

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

[...]

Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.

Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, when he first heard of Ramirez’s allegations. Kavanaugh answered: “In the New Yorker story.”

---

In other words, the FBI's investigation will uncover that Kavanaugh definitely lied under oath about when he became aware of Ramirez's allegations.

Now, one might be inclined to say that the timing of when Kavanaugh found about these allegations is not relevant to whether or not he committed the assault, and that this is immaterial.  A person saying that would probably not have been alive during the '90s, when Bill Clinton - being investigated for a real estate deal, and later charges of sexual harassment - was asked about a consensual affair and lied under oath about it.

One might next be inclined to point out that Clinton was impeached but not convicted, and so therefore this obvious perjury isn't that important.  And that standard might apply... if Kavanaugh were already a sitting Justice.  But we're not talking about impeaching him; we're talking about whether he should get this job, or someone else should instead.  And perjury during your job interview seems like a disqualifying act.

And one more note: Bill Clinton was disbarred (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/02/duncancampbell) after committing perjury.  If we are to be consistent, I don't see how one could be on the Supreme Court while disbarred from it.

Just like everything else ... I'll wait and see if it is true. So far ... there have been so many false claims by media and people that we have lost count. It seems that wanting something to be true is more important than verifying it is true these days.

So you're saying you question whether the text messages were forged?
I presume there is no question as to Kavanaugh's testimony that he found out about the allegations after the article was printed.

Dammit man. Who would have thought we should wait for evidence before jumping to conclusions. Oh yes ... it was me ... hahaha. The funny part is by omitting facts it shows media bias. perfect for this thread.

There's just one problem: the NBC News story leaves out a key detail. Kavanaugh admitted, in a deposition conducted by Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, that he knew Ramirez was looking for dirt and calling around to a handful of shared acquaintances trying to substantiate her own claims, and that he discussed the flurry of activity with an "inner circle" of associates.

But Kavanaugh didn't find out precisely what Ramirez was telling reporters until reporters for The New Yorker asked him for comment.

That characterization is wrong.  First off, from the transcript (https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted)..pdf):

My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?
Judge Kavanaugh:  No.

Complete question, definitive answer.  If he did know, that's perjury, open and shut.

That excerpt is from page 18.  Shortly thereafter, Kavanaugh goes on to say that he read in the New York Times (who passed on running the New Yorker story and only reported after the fact) that Ramirez was calling around, which in no way counteracts his claim that he knew nothing before the New Yorker story.  He also mentions that he personally heard about her calling around (with no timeframe given), which again does not cancel out his flat denial that he knew about the claim before the New Yorker story.

If you say under oath you hadn't discussed an incoming accusation before a given date, and you are on record strategizing against it before that date, you committed perjury. Period.

And now the crying starts from the biased media and the left. When Trump complains about the FBI the Democrats stand behind them and say they are professionals and do a fine job, but now that the shoe is on the other foot the FBI did a poor job.....Can’t have your cake and eat it to!

Next time the democrats have the senate and the presidency, expect to see the supreme court expanded to 15 members.  There's rumblings about it already. Since the Merrick Garland hypocrisy, it's pretty inevitable.

If I were a praying man, this would definitely be something worth praying for...

The sad part is that is what politics have become. Saying or doing the very thing you just criticized your opponent for because the situation is reversed. Most politician's suck as far as having any actual integrity.

Over the last two years, conservatives cheered James Comey for investigating Hillary, denounced him when he declared that she hadn't committed any crime, cheered him again when he reopened the investigation a week before the election, and denounced him again after Trump fired him (supposedly for being unfair to Hillary, no less!).

It is ridiculous to believe that if one declares support for starting an investigation, one must therefore support any conclusion that investigation comes to no matter how poorly it is conducted.  I mean, you guys are the party of law and order and you've been trying to stop an investigation into collusion with a foreign country, so you should intuitively understand this.

It's a moot point now. Kavanaugh appreciates your congratulations.

So using your rationale the Democratic members of Congress, like Sen. Schumer, that wanted an additional FBI investigation into Kavanaugh (the 7th), should not be denouncing the findings of that 7th investigation.  Correct?

And the Democrats were in the exact opposite position the whole time thus proving that politicians suck. They do not care about reason or logic unless it supports their cause.

Incorrect.  The argument you are making is like saying that if you thought Casey Anthony should be arrested and charged with murder, you are not allowed to denounce the verdict because "you got what you wanted.". Kavanaugh's investigation was a sham.  The FBI didn't even interview Ford or Kavanaugh.


So if you're a hypocritical politician who changes position based solely on what's convenient at the time, you suck.  But if you oppose someone doing that, then... you also suck! Both sides!

Just so I'm clear: the principle at hand here is that if you support anything Comey/the FBI has ever done, you must support everything else they do, or you're just a politician that sucks?

Do you really think they would have been asked questions that they have not already answered under oath?  Ford states 100% that she had one beer and that it was Kavanaugh that groped her and tried to undress her, everything else she can't remember.  Kavanaugh said he doesn't know her and never did such a thing to any woman.  If you think the FBI was going to magically get a different answer, or that the Democrats were too dumb to ask other relevant questions, then I don't know what to tell ya.

I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to. Politicians who change their view based on who is doing it has issues in my opinion. If the Republicans had done to Merrick Garland what the Democrats did I would still have issues with it although I don't think that is how many Republicans would have viewed it. If Democrats had blocked Kavanough in a way similar to the Republicans then I'd have been upset/disappointed but not disgusted. I realize you don't know me but I'm not the type who will sacrifice everything to win. I won't sacrifice my integrity as that isn't something you can ever get back. I think that's one of the reason's very few in Washington are ever trusted. The Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Lindsey Grahams are few and far between.

You're the same person who created a thread explaining why Christians can support a man that does not live up to the moral standards they have expected their whole lives from a President, solely because he is winning political battles.

"Winning is winning" is a rational ethos.  So is "The end justifies the means." But don't preach about how integrity is more important than winning after hearing a guy caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women, and pulling the lever for him because at least he's not a Democrat.

That doesn't compromise my integrity. I voted for conservative Supreme Court Justices and economical policies ... both of which he has done. I haven't condoned his "Tweeting" or his extracurricular sex life.

Then I have a question for you:

What would "sacrificing everything to win" look like?  Specifically, in what way would it be different than what conservatives (and particularly "family values" conservatives) have done over the last two years?

Doing something that goes against their values. LMAO  .... You want the fact that people voted for someone who carried their agenda as a bad thing but it's really not. Trump is an ass. Nothing says you can't support an arsholes and in fact .... some claimed Christians are the biggest arsholes I know.

Heck ... even NYT columnist Bret Stephens has recently admitted that Trump is one of the few people who can stand up to political bullying. Apparently it takes one to beat one. For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.

I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor-sharp dagger.

Had Trump faked votes, or was caught cheating per se then I think it would be disingenuous to support him. As it is he has done what he said he would do so I still support him.

Bump

Every liberal media outlet jumped on this story like BuzzFeed had a legit source...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/18/robert-mueller-disputes-buzzfeed-story-trump-directing-michael-cohen-lie/2620598002/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/18/robert-mueller-disputes-buzzfeed-story-trump-directing-michael-cohen-lie/2620598002/)

...then a few days later, these KIDS get attacked by a bunch of media and Hollywood liberals, receiving death threats because everyone was so quick to judgment.  Death threats to a bunch of kids.  Day 1 of the story made that smiling kid the face of racism.  Reports were said they were chanting build that wall, when that never happened.  The real racists are the Hebrew Israelites calling them cracker, incest, future school shooters.  The next day the real truth comes out.  A lot of egg on people's faces huh.  

https://www.newsweek.com/covington-catholic-cancelled-classes-viral-video-students-trump-threats-1299940 (https://www.newsweek.com/covington-catholic-cancelled-classes-viral-video-students-trump-threats-1299940)

You know when Trump says the media is the enemy of the people?  It's shit like this that backs that up.

There were many videos posted of liberals harassing old conservative men but did anyone jump on that bandwagon? Only crickets.  The media literally is sitting and waiting for conservatives to be asses so they can pretend to be offended. Truth is many teens can be aholes at times regardless of how they were brought up. Regardless of what side they support it is not a reflection of Trump or Pelosi. 

Misinformation is the enemy of any reasonable mind... But this blue-moon example of a story really has "nothing" to do with why I think know that Trump is the slimiest weasel to ever hold political office.

That said...that MAGA hat has become a symbol of intolerance in this country. Perhaps a less offensive wardrobe accessory - like, say, a nazi armband<g> - would keep them from being targeted so heinously.

 :o

That's like saying women shouldn't wear revealing clothing because they're asking for rape.  I get the dislike for Trump, he says and does stuff people hate.  And people have a right to rag them about their MAGA gear, just like they have a right to wear it.  Those racist Hebrew Israelites calling them names are pretty scummy, but they did nothing illegal.  

The thing that stand out: these are kids man, and the ones attacking them are adults.  Adults asking for their names and addresses to be blasted all over the internet.  Adults making death threats.  Those kids acted way more mature than any of the adults involved in the situation.

wonder if these kids were black and wearing hoodies instead of maga hats if they'd be "kids" .. or if they'd be "thugs" .. just wondering to myself here .. hmmm...

They would definitely not be called thugs unless they were breaking the law.  The media wouldn't let anyone get away with that, they're ready to jump on the first inkling of perceived racism without facts.  Also, is there a full video in this hypothetical scenario showing the kids not doing anything wrong?  Because the real version of that happening has an 1.5 hour long video for proof.

Definitely a difference between mainstream media that occasionally makes mistakes or only has a portion of the story and then when additional information comes to light also puts that information out as well.  Eg.  CNN posted all available video of the incident as they received them, and Fox News which which will blantenly lie, never admits mistakes or attempts to. provide any context that doesn’t fit their narrative.

And I have to disagree with the slimiest weasel to hold office.  We had a president not too long ago abuse his power to get blowjob from a young intern in the oval office, and also was accused of rape/sexual misconduct by 4 different women.  I think Slick Willy gives him a run for his money.

To be fair, almost all politicians are slimy weasels.

Bill Clinton did not "abuse his power."  Monica Lewinsky has said multiple times that she was the initiator, and they were both consenting adults.
As for accusations of assault, Bill Clinton isn't on tape bragging about committing sexual assault.

Now let us speak of these children who have been unfairly and viciously cast as "racists" by our lying fake news media, who can't help but attack any conserv... just a moment:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxbCfL1UcAAOSCK.jpg)
Oh yeah, these are the kids of Covington Catholic in blackface (they even added the lips!) playing against a team from a majority black school.  Quick, we need more context for these innocent children that certainly were not raised to believe in white supremacy!

https://twitter.com/JenBohle/status/1087751866493083648

"You're black, we're cool, we pay for your school" is definitely a normal chant used in many high school games around the country.  Spirit of competition and all that.

And for the record:
There are receipts.

https://twitter.com/roflinds/status/1087486166939680768

Let me just add one thing about the MAGA hats.

The fact that certain individuals use Trump campaign slogans, paraphernalia, or even his name itself as a challenge to minorities, women, LGBTs, and other disadvantaged groups etc means three things:

1) They know that Trump stands in opposition to those groups
2) They know those groups see Trump as a threat
3) They want to intimidate those groups

It is not difficult to explain why we didn't see people shouting Reagan or Bush's name at opposing teams from minority schools.

You aren't staying on topic.  You're using a separate incident because what actually happened was indefensible.  I know it's hard for you to believe a group of white kids with Maga hats did nothing wrong, but that's what happened.  What's your opinion on the racist black Hebrew Israelites? What's your opinion on Phillips adding fuel to the fire?  And now is lying about what happened? What's your opinion on the liberal media making shit up and Hollywood types actively trying to destroy these kids lives?

And both the Clinton's are scumbags, you aren't changing my mind on that one.

(https://img.fireden.net/v/image/1482/03/1482034346249.jpg)
Plenty of white thugs and wanna be white thugs. These kids are not. Everytihing is not about race and it makes people look ignoranat to constantly claim that. It's been so misused it lost it's meaning so much that no one cares any longer. Just this week Alyssa Milano said the MAGA hat is the new white hood. It only took minutes until tons of blacks posted pictures of themselves wearing the MAGA hat.

These days when most people throw out the race card it pretty much means they have no argument. We all know what our mothers taught us about sticks & stones and name calling. 

This shows nothing, you think this is proof of anything?  The clip lasts 3 seconds and you see a small group of people.  Trying to distract and deflect eh?

Wow.... To even think they're in the same category is silly.

What's silly is that you think this is absurd.  The Clintons are as corrupt as it gets.

If you want to discuss that though, make a new thread so this one doesn't get off track.

That's literally why you bumped this topic!

The Covington kids were taking heat for the video of them with the Native protesters, but you talk about some other video with a completely different group of people acting terribly, then claim that everyone "has egg on their face" for criticizing the teens.  The Hebrew Israelites are not affiliated with the Native protesters that were there for the Indigenous Peoples March, and the Natives aren't responsible for the actions of the Hebrew Israelites just because they are both minorities.

The Native protesters marched between the two groups to try to prevent escalation.  Is that justification for how the teens acted towards them?  Do you have ANY justification for how the teens acted towards the Native protesters?  Because that's the cause of the original uproar... the one that you said justified Trump's attacks on the media as the "enemy of the people."

...they're terrible?  I haven't seen anyone anywhere defending them, but the Natives do not somehow share responsibility for them.

What lie?  The multiple videos speak for themselves.  Here's another one with full context:

https://vimeo.com/312330750

Hillary took money to speak to Wall Street and Trump had to sign a DOJ consent decree for discriminating against blacks, both are scumbags.  Only distinguishing one level of scumbag works pretty well for flattening the comparison to one of the most corrupt and immoral politicians in history.

I bumped this topic because media bias told an untrue narrative of what happened.

 

Okay?  I'm not saying the Hebrew Israelites and the Native Americans were in it together.  I'm saying there is a much larger narrative here that the media didn't initially show, including what started the whole thing (HI).  Phillips, who by the way, ISN'T a Vietnam Vet, he's a Vietnam ERA vet, another fact the media got wrong, (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nathan-phillips-vietnam-veteran/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nathan-phillips-vietnam-veteran/))says he tried to diffuse the situation and ended up being caught between a "predator and it's pray", comes up to the MAGA kid and beats his drum in his face.  There are a series of events that happened, I'm not sure how you can't follow that.  Liberal Hollywood has egg on their faces, just look to Kathy Griffin and Paton Oswald...many more.  Liberal media has egg on it's face for this and the BuzzFeed story, both of which were reported with factual inacurracies.  But this part:


Yeah, I know.  No one said this.  YOU MADE THIS UP.  I said the kids acted more mature than all the adults involved.

Bullshit, this is a political publicity stunt.  He has a history of doing this sort of thing to escalate things.  But that's an opinion of mine, so we'll assume to take him at his word.

They were justified already.  I don't know what your talking about.  There's an 1.5 hour long video showing they did nothing wrong.  The worst that happened is a couple of kids did the tomahawk, which you'll see at any Braves or FSU game.  If that's disrespectful, well, they are still KIDS and I only saw a couple do it.  All while an ADULT is banging a drum in a KIDS face to get a reaction out of him.  And liberal ADULTS blasting this kids information online.  And liberal ADULTS issuing death threats.


We agree on them being terrible.  I keep bringing them up because they are the catalyst that started this whole thing.  I think everyone in the world knows they don't share responsibility for each other, they each do their own shitty things separately.  

"It looked like these young men were going to attack these guys. They were going to hurt them. They were going to hurt them because they didn't like the color of their skin. They didn't like their religious views. They were just here in front of the Lincoln -- Lincoln is not my hero, but at the same time, there was this understanding that he brought the (Emancipation Proclamation) or freed the slaves, and here are American youth who are ready to, look like, lynch these guys. To be honest, they looked like they were going to lynch them. They were in this mob mentality. Where were their parents? Because they were obvious a student group."--https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/us/nathan-phillips-maga-teens-interview/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/us/nathan-phillips-maga-teens-interview/index.html)  This is the biggest load of crap I've ever seen.  This is a blatant lie.  And you're right, the videos speak for themselves...it speaks that the teens did nothing wrong.


I'm not going to discuss the Clintons with you unless you make a new thread.  Those were one off comments.

Tenshot, I have an easy question for you before we proceed further:

In the original video that came out - the one that got everyone mad at the Covington teens  - did you see anything wrong?  I mean, in that specific video alone.

When I saw that video, the first thing I thought was there is more to this story and I looked into it further.  I try very hard not to jump to conclusions until enough information comes out.  I've always been more analytical than emotional, but sometimes my emotions get the better of me.

I can't look at the first video and make a snap judgement.  I have to know what the situation was, who was involved, who instigated this, why is this kid smiling, why is this man beating a drum in his face, etc.  I was late to the party on the video, the longer one had come out by then so when I did look into it, I saw what really happened.

You're dodging the question.

We know that there are more videos that provide more context. But that's not what I'm asking.  I'm asking if you see a problem with the teens' conduct in the original video.

Because if you don't, it seems like the entire discussion is a waste of time.  "We need more context" is a meaningless statement if your starting point is that (absent any additional context) the conduct in the original video is perfectly acceptable to begin with.

For example, if I was here defending the Hebrew Israelites, I could say, "Well, there's EVEN MORE video that shows the Covington teens being horrible to HI first." But it wouldn't make any sense for me to offer that defense if my underlying belief was that HI still didn't say anything wrong anyway.  I should just state the latter and make my stand there.

I'm not dodging any question.  You're obviously trying to setup a point, but I don't think that way.  If you think it's a waste of time, that's on you.

Don't forget, he's probably part of the crowd that didn't hear the UN laugh at Trump.

I mean, there are certainly mistakes the media makes at times. The thread started because of a perceived bias against Trump. I mean, Wilbur Ross just came out today or yesterday saying furloughed workers should get a loan and they may have to pay interest on that loan. He doesn't understand why some of them, after not receiving 2 paychecks, need to go to food lines and get donated items. Sarah Sanders doesn't do press briefings anymore (not like she had that many going for her anyway). Trump won't go through with the SOTU until the government is open. Michael Cohen is subpoenaed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. There are dozens of more stories and all of that is just this week! But people like Tenshot and the others will think it's a bias just reporting how bad this president is and the absolute destruction he is causing this country.

When I made this thread, it was about general media bias. I appreciate all the assumptions and lies though.  I'm not some forever Trumper I've made that very clear, but you'd rather believe I'm some alt-righter.

It's unjust to attack me because I'm not talking about the shutdown.  No one else brought it up and had ample opportunity.  Btw I think they're both huge babies regarding that.  Just make a damn deal already.


Also, Trump isnt allowed to use the house for his SOTU per Pelosi.  That's why he's waiting until after the shutdown

It isn't "trying to setup a point," it IS the point.  Your original accusation was that the "enemy of the people" media rushed to condemn based on a short clip that looks bad, without waiting for the full context. But that position is significantly undercut if your underlying belief is that no additional context is needed because the original video isn't even bad.

But let's continue:

If the Natives aren't responsible for HI, why are we talking about HI in the first place?  Why does it matter if HI are "the real racists"?  The original video was between the Covington teens and the Native protesters.  How do the unhinged proclamations of HI change the context of the original video?

I mean, I can insist that I'm not a hardcore leftist all day long, but if every argument I make is defending hardcore leftism, then if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

In other words, the reason why you are accused of being a forever Trumper is your consistent, unwavering defense of & excuse-making for Trump.

The original video doesn't matter.  In what world is a snap judgement based on emotion > the facts?  Also, I didn't say the media was the enemy of the people, you're twisting my words.  I said:


To continue, we are talking about HI because they are the catalyst that started this whole thing.  I've already said that.  They are part of the whole story.  Why would you NOT talk about them?  They are the reason Phillips got in between them, correct?  I still think it's a political publicity stunt that he seized the opportunity for, but the situation likely doesn't happen if HI isn't calling a bunch of white kids cracker and future school shooters.

So you think I'm an alt-righter?  You pretty much just said so.

I think you consistently defend the positions of the right (which isn't necessarily the same as the alt-right).  Whether you personally identify as "right" or "alt-right" is not for me to determine.

But I hold myself to the same standard.  I'm a registered independent, yet you don't see me pushing back when conservatives here accuse me of being a Democrat.  At the end of the day, I am responsible for the ideas I defend.

And you're not wrong in your assessment, I'm a registered republican and lean right.  There are things I don't agree with, I think the rights lack of concern for the environment is a mistake.  I didn't vote for Rick Scott any time he was on the ballet, I actually voted for Christ for governor.  Trump just said minutes ago that he thinks most of the government employees support the shut down because they know what's at stake, which is a pretty fucking stupid thing to say, considering 800,000 people need that money now.  

I think the reason I'm consistently defending the right is because everything is liberal in the media, movies and TV shows.  Conservative, there's FoxNews which isn't all that great, Last Man Standing, also not great... That's really all I can think of.  Liberal entertainment, and media has pretty much all of Hollywood, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, anything on the CW, it's constantly in your face. 

Anyone who can look at the media apart from their own personal politics should be able to see that all media outlets (at least the major ones) are biased.  They are either biased towards the left or biased towards the right.  The big question shouldn't be about specific incidents.  The big question should be how did we get here?  When did it become okay for the media to be blatantly biased?  I'm probably a little older than most of you, but I can remember when the concept of "journalistic integrity" was a cornerstone of that profession.  Now it is non existent.  If there is no honest broker for information, the masses will be increasingly ignorant of facts.  A pretty good argument could be made for the fact we are already there. 

I used to think that the end of the Fairness Doctrine was the tipping point, as that was basically the point where most news went from respectable to terrible.  But if I'm being honest, the issues with today's media would not be solved if every news outlet was doing more "both sides" false equivalency.  "Both sides" is the problem, not the solution.  (And in any case, cable news would not be subject to the Fairness Doctrine, which brings me to my next point...)

The problem is cable news.  Prior to CNN and Fox News, news was considered something that was a public responsibility of broadcast companies; it was not expected to be a revenue generator.  But CNN figured out that you can get huge ratings by putting two opposing sides on a panel and having them argue, and Fox figured out that you can get even bigger ratings by taking the standard conservative anger/fear towards The Other and dialing it up to 11.  (Dialing up liberal anger/fear towards the rich doesn't get ratings in America, which is why you see MSNBC doing stuff like this (https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/760211340514435072/) that you would NEVER see from their supposed equal opposite, Fox News.)  Huge ratings = huge money, and then the legacy news sources were "forced" to follow suit because they weren't making the kind of revenue that cable news was.

Oh, and Roger Stone was just arrested. Funny how everyone associated with the President is corrupt or going to jail. And Republican senators blaming McConnell for the shutdown still going on. Juicy Friday. I guess reporting this is more media bias.

Oh, this is just an F5 kind of day. Now the FAA is ordering more ground stops and is delaying flights  because of a lack of air-traffic control staff. Just Trump operating like normal. Causing the US to fail, just like his business.

More media bias? :)

Solid post right there and I totally agree with you about "both sides" being the problem.  It doesn't help that our society has become so "dumbed down" and lazy that they just pick a source that for the most part reflects their ideals and they just repeat whatever those sources are telling them.  I hate that.  Just give me facts and let me make my own opinions about a subject.   But no.  For most people, thinking is hard work and it is easier to just repeat what someone else says.  Don't even get me started on people who get their "news" from the internet.  "I saw on the internet that the Democrats want to allow abortion up until a kid enters high school."  "I saw on the internet that the Republicans want to open up nazi style concentration camps to kill everyone who isn't white."   

It also makes me crazy with how the right wingers will reject everything that the left wing proposes and the left wing will reject everything the right wing proposes.  Don't even look at the validity of the topic.  Just be against the other guy.  Border security is a prime example.  Back in 2013 (I believe that was the year), Obama and Peolosi were both interviewed and the tv footage is still there and both of them said that we needed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across the border and strengthen border barriers.  The right wanted nothing to do with it because it was the Democrats saying it.  Now Trump is saying the same thing and the left wants nothing to do with it because it is a Republican saying it. I know they all do it in pursuit of the support of their bases because poll numbers are SO much more important than doing what is best for the country.  Sorry, got a little off topic there. 

There is no liberal media bias.  That's bullshit.

Facts have a liberal bias at this point in time, because the conservative party is fucked up at this point in time.  Science points to global warming being real, CNN reports that.  That's not liberal...that's just facts.  What the Republican party is has become a slight to conservative ideals.  It's been hijacked by religious zealotry and wealth protection.

Donald Trump spouts lies like no other politician in American History.  These are verified, intentional lies -- they are daily.  This is like nothing we have ever seen.  This is not like "you can keep your doctor" lies that Obama told, where they were thought to be true.  This is not the lies that Bush told where they were omissions of partial truths or whatever else.  These are new, they are intentional, and they are verifiably false.  They are reported as lies by the media.  That isn't biased.  It's just honest reporting.  Sure, the editorial stuff at CNN probably skews liberal in terms of where their ideals are, but that's not what's at stake here.

That's where we are at.

Spider is right about false equivalency and equal time.  There should be no equal time when it comes to factual reporting.

Conservatives should be fuming mad at what the Republican party has become.

The only people fuming mad at the Republican party are Democrats Dave.  Whatever that means, that's what's happening.

Government is reopening later today.

Correct.  The others have left.  Current Republicans are just fine with whatever this has become.

LOL, Good one, Dave.  

"There is no liberal media bias.  That's bullshit."   -Every single left wing nut in the country
"There is no conservative media bias.  That's bullshit."   -Every single right wing nut in the country

And that is exactly what I was complaining about in my previous post.  

^^^

I just heard Chuck Schumer talking...I really can't stand him.  He could be the best politician in the world, and the fact that he always has so much mucus in his mouth every time he talks...drink some damn water already!  I found him to be pretty petty following the end of the shutdown, Pelosi was more dignified.

InB4 Trump is more pettierer

Actually bias is inevitable.  The New York Times has a left leaning bias. The Wall Streets Journal has a right leaning bias.  Both are fine papers, both strive to be fair even though their editors have actual opinions and see the news from particular perspectives.  

However, Fox News has an agenda.  It doesn’t stive to be fair.  It sets out to push a specific narrative.  Same thing with the daily kos.  

Here is the difference most liberals know the daily kos has an agenda (one they agree with) and take what they report with a grain of salt. most conservative deny that fox has an agenda.

Two things. MSNBC and CNN are every bit as bad if not worse than the slants at FOX. You can even throw in NBC & ABC at certain times.  FOX News isn't actually bad. It's the talk shows and the talking heads over there that are definitely slanted ... which is what you get at MSNBC.  If you're just looking at the news that FOX puts out separate form the talk shows it isn't bad.

In case you missed it in my last post:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CozQLzYWcAQOjNm.jpg:small)

Since Fox News and MSNBC are "equally bad," surely you can provide an example of Fox News hiring prominent liberal radio hosts, former Democratic campaign chiefs, former heads of the DNC, etc.?  If you can't, I'll settle for an example of a former Democratic congressman that was given the coveted morning slot (http://"https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe") for a decade or so on Fox.

You don't agree with me.  In fact, I would say that you are in favor of exactly what I was objecting to.

I was not criticizing both sides.  I was criticizing the mainstream media (so: not Fox), who can only frame disputes in a "both sides are responsible" or "both sides disagree" fashion, even when one side is clearly in the wrong.  To wit:

This is exactly the false equivalency I was talking about.  If the right is proposing that we ban all Muslims from entering the country "until we figure out what the hell is going on", and the left is proposing that we take action to try to stop the climate change that virtually all climate scientists agree is being caused by humans, these are not morally equivalent actions, and it's ridiculous to frame it as "well one side is just going to object to whatever the other side says no matter what."

No it's not. And to prove that point. One year politicians will campaign or argue for something. Then a few years later when the other side wants that exact same thing, they will flip flop and fight against it. There is plenty of video evidence of both sides doing it. They all flip flop according to what their opponent is doing.

I was agreeing with part of what you had said, but that is my bad because I should have specified what it was that I was agreeing with.  Also, exactly what am I in favor of that you are objecting to? 

You must have heard them say "false equivalency" on MSNBC.  You sure like to say it a lot.  I'm just not sure you fully understand what it means.  Also, if you could point out which Republican sponsored bill has ever "proposed that we ban all Muslims from entering the country", I would certainly be interested in reading that bill as it sounds terrible. 

"A few years later" is doing some pretty heavy lifting in that sentence.

If Democrats were in favor of granting civil unions (in lieu of marriage) to same-sex couples in 1999, they are not "flip-flopping" to say that civil unions are not an acceptable substitute for marriage in 2019.  Society has changed over the last 20 years.

A better example might be if they were extremely concerned about the deficit and insisted on drastic budget cuts (to programs they disagree with ideologically anyway) until the moment when they took power, at which point they blew gaping holes in the deficit with bills that are aligned with their ideological goals, and then, when they lost control, started complaining about the deficit again.  But we know that "both sides" don't do this.

This:

The left rejects much of what the right proposes because it's crazy and stupid.

Now, the rather obvious (and lazy) retort is to say that the right also says that what the left proposes is crazy and stupid!  And this is the problem: a viewpoint like the one you describe above implies that there's no objective way to tell which side is wrong, and that is not true.  You reduce the dispute to, "Well one side side says this and the other side says that, so I guess we can't know who is right!"

Conservatives are aware that the facts say that they are wrong.  This is why you see them attacking scientists, educators, and even journalists who simply report the facts.  They have created an entirely insulated ecosystem for producing their own set of alternative facts, because the normal system - the system that has been in place for hundreds of years of scientific and economic advancement - says their ideas are crazy and stupid.

So when you complain about "the right wingers will reject everything that the left wing proposes and the left wing will reject everything the right wing proposes," you are making absolutely no allowance for the possibility that what the right proposes is bad and dumb.  You're treating the proposals of both sides as if they are equivalent when they are not.  I believe there's a term for that...

Well, in the context of treating two things that are unequal as if they are equal, "false equivalency" is a pretty accurate term.  I'm certainly open to suggestions for a different one.

I never claimed that it was a "Republican sponsored bill," and the fact that you inserted that extra condition indicates that you're quite aware of the source: the current President of the United States made a complete ban of all Muslims entering the country a centerpiece of his Presidential campaign.  Are you trying to claim that a major campaign plank of a Republican President does not count as a "proposal of the right"?

Spider, thanks for further explaining your previous post.  I have a better understanding of what you were getting at now.  If I came across as having the viewpoint that neither "side" is wrong and that they are just different approaches, then I was unclear in what I was trying to say.  The right comes up with some truly moronic stances and the left comes up with some truly moronic stances.  What I was trying to point out was that both sides can take a simple story and spin them in such polar opposite ways that you would never guess it was the same story.  I was also trying to make the point that because both sides (and I am generalizing here) are so closed minded in defending "their team" that they are unable/unwilling to take those filters off and base their opinions on the facts.  Hence my comment of lefties saying there is no liberal bias in the media and the righties saying there is no conservative bias in the media. 

Honestly, I don't have a dog in the hunt for either party because my own political bent is probably about 75% towards the philosophies of the Libertarian.  I say 75% because I try to be mindful of determining the merits of each individual party tenet on its own rather than just blindly going along with whatever my party stands for on any particular cause.  Which is of course what I have been voicing my frustration about when it comes to Democrats and Republicans. 

I agree with some of the things you say here and I disagree with some of them.  And that is fine.  Respectful public discourse is a good thing.  But either way, I appreciate the fact that you seem to put a lot of thought into your positions and you seem to make an effort to educate yourself about the topics you post on. 

I am turned off by the fact that the social media narrative right now is about how Trump got dogged by Pelosi.  He definitely lost the fight in terms of politics.  He stayed in the poker hand too long with no cards, called and he folded.  Fine.

But it’s unfair for people to ask him to do the right thing, then for him to cave to do the right thing (under pressure or not) and then to be ridiculed as getting beat for doing the right thing.   Trump sucked it up and took the L.  I won’t bash him for it.

You claim that Trump took a loss. I disagree. I could be wrong but I think he's playing the long game and has a bigger picture in mind. And I just watched a Yahoo video with the headline, "Democrats declare victory in the shutdown battle." It was a video of Pelosi and Schumer taking the opportunity to chide Trump and take credit.

What did they win? No one has won anything. It's like saying you won the coin toss at the beginning of the Superbowl and then claiming you won the game. Unless they plan on giving Trump something he wants there will be another shutdown next month. So what happens when they don't offer Trump anything close to what he wants? At that point, the next shutdown will be on them.

Giving Palosi or Trump credit is wrong.  The folks who ended this shut down are the brave air. traffic controlers who said enough is enough, if you aint paying we aint working. 

Every government worker should learn from them and say....next time you shut down the government, it will be shut down for real.  No airports, no secret service, no boarder controls, no FBI, no nothing.

There are a few bills in the works that would end the possibility of future government shutdowns; they would automatically continue funding at existing levels until a bill is passed affirmatively changing them.

Good, I say.  This idiotic shutdown dance is almost as dangerous as the debt ceiling dance, and neither of these issues should exist.  No one believes that the government should actually shut down, and you can tell this is true because even the people who will be against ending future shutdowns will tell you that federal prison guards, air traffic controllers, TSA agents, etc. can't stay home.

The real lesson to be learned here is that if airports were the first thing to be closed, we would never, ever have a government shutdown.  All that talk about "why do you just borrow some money from your dad while you aren't getting a paycheck?" ended the moment flights started getting cancelled in the northeast.

What exactly are you referring to by "debt ceiling dance"?

The dance where the federal government passes bills authorizing spending, and then debates after-the-fact whether or not we should default on paying for those goods or services.  The idea of a "debt ceiling" is ridiculous; the ceiling should be whatever spending the duly elected government of the United States has authorized.  If Congress and the WH passes a $5T budget, then that should necessarily trigger whatever debt increase is needed to execute that budget.

Unfortunately that's flawed thinking. Nobody, including the government should be spending more than they are taking in on a consistent basis. $22 Trillion and counting, this model is unsustainable for very much longer. The government spends entirely too much money on bullshit. There should be a balanced budget amendment.


If we followed that, we wouldn't be in the deep shit we're in. So no, we shouldn't be raising the debt ceiling. If that means that we can't authorize spending, then so be it. But yeah, let's elect more idiots like AOC and implement more and more socialist programs and run the debt up even more. In the not too distant future, life will be very hard for the future citizens of the United States. Keep your head in the sand because numbers don't lie. And the numbers are unsustainable.

I work for a federal law enforcement agency.  I'm not sure if it is true for the civilian agencies or not, but it is literally illegal for me to go on strike.  It is a pretty sweet gig.  I get to work for free (although we will get back pay) during shutdowns, it is illegal for us to strike, AND it is against regulations for me to take a part time job to try to make a few dollars during a shutdown.  Actually, in my agency's brilliance they said that if we want to take a part time job during a shutdown, we have to get approval from our legal division.  The beautiful part of that, our entire legal division was furloughed so if we tried to get approval for a part time job, all we got was a voice mail saying our message will be returned after the shutdown ends.   ::)

Then you should convince Congress to pass bills with lower spending (or take in more money, but we both know that's not what you meant).

Here is the problem: Congress writes bills to authorize spending, and Congress also writes bills to raise the debt ceiling.  So why are these two processes separate?  It makes no sense for Congress to authorize spending and then have to separately raise the debt ceiling for the spending they just authorized.  It creates a completely unnecessary point of failure for our economy.

it is illegal for them too.  But if 90% of you went on strike you would win the strike.  If only 10% the ones on strike would likely be fired.  That is why i called the air traffic controllers brave.

Not raising the debt ceiling would be like buying a car and then when the 3rd monthly payment came due on your car, you decided to not pay the $300 cost because your reached $3000 total spending for the month even tho you have $4k in your bank account.

debt ceiling has nothing to do with how much money the government spends, it's an entirely artificial number that morons in congress without a basic understanding of economics decided to slap on to budgets. it should be eliminated entirely. It's grover norquist level of stupid.

If you make $30k a year and are in debt $150,000 on credit cards you don't finance a car. It doesn't matter if you have $4k in your account.

However, total US debt is not an artificial number. We owe that money. The amount has reached a level that will never be paid back. What happens when the interest gets too much to handle? Don't say it can't or won't happen. We will fall just like all the other empires the world has seen.

Name one empire that's failed because of too much government debt?

Rome & The Ottoman Empire. But then again, empires don't rise and fall for a single reason. However, economy and financial reasons are almost always intertwined when empires, countries, and nations fail.  If you think the US is too big to fail, you are part of the problem. Anyhow, go read for yourself if you need a history lesson.

I suppose you are right that if 90% of us went on strike we would win.  However, I would say that at least 75% of us would never strike even if it was legal because at least 75% of us feel that our commitment to duty is why we do our jobs.  The vast majority of us are prior military and we have been instilled with the mindset that our job goes on regardless of the chuckleheads in Congress/WhiteHouse and their political games.  We understand we are pawns. But we do our job for our country (corny sounding, but true) and for each other.  I will admit though that if we didn't get back pay after a month of working for free, those percentages would probably change significantly.

The time to make this decision is before you buy the car, not after you have already taken it and driven it for three months.

If you think that we can't afford this spending, then you should pressure Congress to reduce spending.  Instead, you are proposing that since it's too difficult to convince Congress to reduce spending, let's just stop paying the bill when it arrives.

It literally cannot happen for any debt issued in USD unless we simply choose not to pay it.

The federal government of the United States has the ability to create a limitless number of US dollars to pay any debt in that currency.  Now, you can argue that they shouldn't create too many USD because - over time - it will devalue the dollar.  But you know what will devalue the dollar instantly and much more severely?  If the United States says, "Well, yeah, we could create more dollars to pay the debt that we owe you... but we don't feel like it, so we're just not going to pay you at all."

McConnell had this to say today regarding a federal holiday so federal employees can go vote:

“Just what America needs, another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out and work for I assume our folks—our colleagues on the other side, on their campaigns,” McConnell said. “This is the Democrat plan to restore democracy? A brand-new week of paid vacation for every federal employee who would like to hover around while you cast your ballot?”

Ensuring people can actually go out and vote is going to destroy democracy I guess. I just hate how the media reports things with such a bias.

Election Day should already be a holiday.  If you're concerned about too many paid holidays, move Veterans Day from November 11th to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

I would have agreed with you years ago but early  voting is so simple.

Not every state allows early voting.

(https://www.270towin.com/uploads/ncsl_early_voting.png)

But I think a more comprehensive focus on vote-by-mail is also important.

I am going to be consistent.  Unless this is a forgery he should resign.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/politics/northam-blackface-photo/index.html

Just like Mitch McConnell should for his support of racist organizations.

.
Link

He might be referring to this award from the Sons of Confederate Veterans:

(http://jaxgay.com/uploads/3/4/8/7/34871263/published/dwaz6ykwwam8vnw.jpg?1546979805)

But I imagine the immediate response will be "Why would anyone think the Confederacy is associated with racism?", so I'm not sure how helpful my citation will be.

correct

Let me disagree with you Hoodie and say that I don't think Northam or McConnell should resign over things-that-are-not-illegal that happened decades ago.  These actions were in poor taste, but not immediately disqualifying.   People can change.

I'm perfectly happy for them to apologize for and denounce their previous actions while working to combat the kind of inequity those actions represented.  I think Northam can do so, while McConnell would be primaried instantly if he tried.

Politicians from each of the parties are such a bunch of vote whores that if the nazis were a large voting block in this country, every politician in the country would be posing in front of a swastika flag. 

Maybe.  But they’re not.  If you sell out for votes, it’s fine.  You just have to pay the price later when the demographics change.

Democrats gonna democrat.

Not necessarily.  Trump used to be the darling of the Democrats when he was all snuggled up to Hillary back in the day.  But the demographics changed and overnight he "turned into" a Republican and got elected president.  The American public has a very short memory.  All you have to do is deny til you die or say that you have "changed".  Just like the Virginia Governor.  Yesterday he apologized for the picture and apparently that tactic wasn't flying very well so today he turned around and denied it was him.  Again, that is the kind of slime that politicians are.  Just keep lying til you find a lie that people are willing to buy into.  I just get a kick out of how both parties point out how slimy the politicians from the other party are.  I have the sad task of dealing with these douchebags (usually through their aides) on a frequent basis with my job and they are all equally disgusting sides of the same coin. 

What you are describing is called "democracy."

Not sure what you mean by that.  But many democrats have called for his resignation.  Now if we just get the same level of self accountability on the other side of the isle, the country would be better of.

I suppose so.  But that isn't the point I was trying to make.  My point was that the vast majority of politicians will be more than happy to have their pictures taken with and buddy up to anyone or any group who either donates large sums of money to their campaign or who they think represents a large enough voter block.  Regardless of how repugnant that person or group may be. Outside of the clergy, politicians are the most hypocritical and sleazy group of people on the planet.  

Trump was never really active with either political party.  But like to hang out with prominent people of any party or walk.  Anything to hubnub with famous/powerful/wealthy people.  He was never a champion of democratic causes or candidates.

He did embrace Hillary in her primary against Obama, but I tend to think that might not have been motivated on seeing her as president, but his disgust at the potential of an African American president.

Again, it seems like your problem is with the concept of democracy itself.

If there is a substantial majority in favor of a certain policy, the politicians in a democracy had damned well better support it, or they can expect to be replaced with new politicians that will.  This is an inherent, fundamental "flaw" of having a democracy, period.  So if the majority of your electorate is comprised of terrible people in favor of repugnant policies, your government will reflect that.

Keep in mind that the reason politicians kowtow to big money campaign donations is because campaign money has consistently proven to be the single largest factor in getting votes.  If we had a system in which large campaign donations (or stand-ins like SuperPACs) were not allowed, politicians would not be nearly as beholden to big money.

You got two out of three factors.  The third is if the majority favor A but are not extremely passionate about it, but there is a minority that is extremely passionate the minority can prevail.

NRAs success is in part due to money, but also because the small number of extremists gun nuts will vote single issue, show up enmass for committee meetings etc. 

So, I have read enough of your comments on this website to know that you are a bright guy.  You are much too intelligent to keep completely missing the point that I am trying to make.  Therefore, I can only assume that you are just trying to be argumentative for some reason that I can't even begin to fathom.  I have had the displeasure of dealing with Congress on at least a weekly basis in my job for 15 years now.  But since this is a completely useless discussion that we are apparently having, I will bow out and say, "Yes, although I have dealt with these people for 15 years, you clearly know much more than I do about the political world."   Good win.  You seem like a decent guy, so don't take this personally, but you are like that guy Mike that used to post here all the time.  He would wear people down to the point where they just walked away because it was less painful than continuing to go around in circles with him. 

As best I can tell, your point was that politicians have little-to-no moral compass, and will blindly do whatever helps them get reelected... whether that's pandering to repugnant voters or big money campaign benefactors.

And to that, I say: blame the repugnant voters, or the system that allows money to control our politics.  You know what happens to politicians who show moral backbone and stand up to the kinds of distasteful elements you cite?   They lose elections to people who won't do that.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Little known fact: 

Politics is a compound word....

poli- meaning many

-tics meaning small disease carrying blood sucking vermin

Most of us who were not fans of Obama have no issues with African Americans and positions of leadership. Put Colin Powell, Herman Cain, or Condoleezza Rice up against them and they would have gotten my vote over Hillary, Obama, and Trump.

I am sure there are Republicans that would choose Powell, Cain or Rice over Hilary, Obama or Trump.

But when you only choose Hillary over Obama and then McCain and Rooney over Obama.  And engage in a bullshit campaign that Obama is not an American.  Have a history of violating fair housing laws,  claim that there are both good and bad neo-nazis, have absolutely no African-Americans in Senior white house potions, it becomes clear that his objection of Obama was race based. 

   

Not that I would ever defend Trump, but I consider a cabinet position to be senior.

Nobody in the the west wing.  One cabinet member in a department that the republican party wants to dismantle. 

I think you surround yourself to what you are familiar. Just like our new coach ... he will and has hired more blacks than head coaches before.

I know from my experiences with sports and work .... blacks and whites can be bonded extremely well but at the end of the day they hang out mostly with similar people. Look at Brady. His team buddies are always white yet I've never thought of him as racist.

This was on the blackboard on day one of my first political science class... Good stuff.

He has a ton of women in power positions and even had an Indian woman as UN Ambassador. That's a pretty high ranking person of color. But I know it doesn't matter because he's sexist too.