Quote: @IDVikingfan said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
@ mblack said:
@ IDVikingfan
Regarding the Atlantic story...
Can you tell who these people are that refuted the claims? It is laughable that at in this day and age one still believed the stories that come out of this administration given the track record of lies being peddled. Literally almost every thing has been closely looked at under this administration has covered significant falsehoods.
How about a first hand from John Bolton, who most definitely is not a trump ally
&feature=youtu.be
How about this article:
https://www.newsweek.com/collusion-betwe...on-1530176
Bolton doesn't say it didn't happen, just that it didn't happen when he was present. "I can't prove he never said those things," he said. I think we have, what, 5 or 6 journalists who have backed up the original report. Are they ALL lying? I guess it's possible. But, given what Trump has already said on tape about prisoners of war ("I like people who weren't captured"), this is very much on message for him. So what does your gut tell you?..... That's what I thought.
Listen to what Bolton says: "President has a habit of disparaging people. He ends up denigrating almost everybody he comes in contact with whose last name is not Trump."
MB, read the newsweek article, author lists the people who were there and do not substantiate the Atlantic article.
I'm not impressed with journalists using unnamed sources. If the person is willing to make the charge, they should be willing to be named. An unnamed source is not substantiated in my book. YMMV
Then, according to you, Watergate didn't happen. Unnamed sources are a big part of journalism. They have to be. They're vital to a free and independent press. They're vital to a democracy so that individuals, corporations and governments are held accountable for wrongdoing.
Anonymous sources and whistleblowers who know about crimes or abuses in government and business won't come forward if their names are printed in the press. They fear for the jobs, even their lives. And so what you get is only the "official" side of a story, which isn't always the truth. Sure, it can happen that an unnamed source will lie, so journalists will rarely print an accusation until they have independent corroboration; in other words, someone who is saying the same thing but unaware of the original accusation.
Without anonymous sources you don't expose Watergate, Enron, Big Tobacco, Monica Lewinski, Snowden outing the NSA, FBI-CIA blockage of info about 9-11, police corruption exposed by Frank Serpico, and on and on and on....
You make good points MB. I have trouble though when witnesses that were there say it never happened but some unnamed source said it did. How do we reconcile? I tend to follow the in person views, recognizing that they may not have the full story but are willing to go on record with what they know.
There is no consequence to defending wrongdoing. The consequence lies with the accuser.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
@ mblack said:
@ IDVikingfan
Regarding the Atlantic story...
Can you tell who these people are that refuted the claims? It is laughable that at in this day and age one still believed the stories that come out of this administration given the track record of lies being peddled. Literally almost every thing has been closely looked at under this administration has covered significant falsehoods.
How about a first hand from John Bolton, who most definitely is not a trump ally
&feature=youtu.be
How about this article:
https://www.newsweek.com/collusion-betwe...on-1530176
Bolton doesn't say it didn't happen, just that it didn't happen when he was present. "I can't prove he never said those things," he said. I think we have, what, 5 or 6 journalists who have backed up the original report. Are they ALL lying? I guess it's possible. But, given what Trump has already said on tape about prisoners of war ("I like people who weren't captured"), this is very much on message for him. So what does your gut tell you?..... That's what I thought.
Listen to what Bolton says: "President has a habit of disparaging people. He ends up denigrating almost everybody he comes in contact with whose last name is not Trump."
MB, read the newsweek article, author lists the people who were there and do not substantiate the Atlantic article.
I'm not impressed with journalists using unnamed sources. If the person is willing to make the charge, they should be willing to be named. An unnamed source is not substantiated in my book. YMMV
Then, according to you, Watergate didn't happen. Unnamed sources are a big part of journalism. They have to be. They're vital to a free and independent press. They're vital to a democracy so that individuals, corporations and governments are held accountable for wrongdoing.
Anonymous sources and whistleblowers who know about crimes or abuses in government and business won't come forward if their names are printed in the press. They fear for the jobs, even their lives. And so what you get is only the "official" side of a story, which isn't always the truth. Sure, it can happen that an unnamed source will lie, so journalists will rarely print an accusation until they have independent corroboration; in other words, someone who is saying the same thing but unaware of the original accusation.
Without anonymous sources you don't expose Watergate, Enron, Big Tobacco, Monica Lewinski, Snowden outing the NSA, FBI-CIA blockage of info about 9-11, police corruption exposed by Frank Serpico, and on and on and on....
You make good points MB. I have trouble though when witnesses that were there say it never happened but some unnamed source said it did. How do we reconcile? I tend to follow the in person views, recognizing that they may not have the full story but are willing to go on record with what they know.
There is no consequence to defending wrongdoing. The consequence lies with the accuser.
In context to my statement, I would rephrase your sentence as "there is no consequence in defending the truth. The consequence lies with the unknown, unproven accuser"
Trump's order to white supremacists is now available in high-quality Tees! Get them now for all your little Nazis before the Christmas rush. Jackboots sold separately.
https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1311...14945?s=20
His niece, Mary Trump, responds.
“It wasn’t a shoutout, It was an order ― and we need to see it in those terms and we should be terrified by that.”
She also named two other reasons he won’t denounce these groups. “First of all, he’s a white supremacist. So he would have to denounce himself, which will never happen,” she said. “Secondly, denouncing white supremacy doesn’t get him anywhere with his base, and that’s the only people he’s talking to anymore.”
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
Trump's order to white supremacists is now available in high-quality Tees! Get them now for all your little Nazis before the Christmas rush. Jackboots sold separately.
His niece, Mary Trump, responds.
“It wasn’t a shoutout, It was an order ― and we need to see it in those terms and we should be terrified by that.”
She also named two other reasons he won’t denounce these groups. “First of all, he’s a white supremacist. So he would have to denounce himself, which will never happen,” she said. “Secondly, denouncing white supremacy doesn’t get him anywhere with his base, and that’s the only people he’s talking to anymore.”
No doubt this POTUS is way far right of center. She's right, it's core base pandering.
Such a stark contrast to the Republican party I grew-up believing in, participating in.
I've tuned him out for almost 3 years now, haven't listened to or read a quote from him in all that time.
Until the debate.
20 minutes was all I needed. I hope the only ones left listening and cheering are his base.
I wish the system gave me a better alternative than what team blue mustered in 16 and 20. But its still an easy choice for me...
My ballot has been cast along with millions of others by 10/1.
![[Image: makeBetterHat_670x240.png]](https://static-2.gumroad.com/res/gumroad/7911073584815/asset_previews/ca65f7f6e68e6e91fc89a87bd847ffcb/retina/makeBetterHat_670x240.png)
I've talked with so many people and co-workers since the debacle (I mean debate).
A small sample size, but not one stay tuned in. Didn't matter what side of center they were on either.
Pretty incredible actually...
The first debate always garners the most viewers, I cant imagine how dismal the ratings may be for the final 2 Potus rounds.
Pence vs Harris? That might be worthy of my time.
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
I've talked with so many people and co-workers since the debacle (I mean debate).
A small sample size, but not one stay tuned in. Didn't matter what side of center they were on either.
Pretty incredible actually...
The first debate always garners the most viewers, I cant imagine how dismal the ratings may be for the final 2 Potus rounds.
Pence vs Harris? That might be some pretty good dialogue.
Yeah, I almost turned it off myself, and I'm a political junkie.
I watched it with my kids, the whole time thinking this probably resembles some of the juvenile social media scuffles they've seen among other 13 year olds. I guess we can be thankful they didn't go into whose dad can beat up whose dad. But the "smart" thing that Trump went into was close. That had to be the most childish thing I've ever heard in presidential politics. Though with two more debates, I'm sure there's an opportunity to talk about penis size....
...I say that as a joke, and then realized that Trump has actually done that. LOL. And to think, there are ACTUALLY people out there who are going to vote for this imbecile.
Chris Wallace blames Trump for chaotic debate: He 'bears the primary responsibility'
Wallace, who had in a Wednesday interview with The New York Times declined to pin the culpability on Trump, told his colleague Bill Hemmer during an interview Thursday that he believes Trump "bears the primary responsibility for what happened.""I had baked this beautiful, delicious cake and then frankly the President put his foot in it," Wallace said.
"That was frustrating," Wallace added. "It was frustrating for me because I tried hard to prepare for a serious debate, much more frustrating and more importantly for the American people because they didn't get the debate they wanted that they deserved."
Wallace, who said that he wished he had stepped in more seriously sooner, went on to describe the missed opportunity as "a loss for the country."
Asked by Hemmer if he had rewatched the debate, Wallace replied, "Oh, God no. Oh, God no. It wasn't something that I want to revisit."
"Look, it took me 4 years to re-watch the Trump-Clinton debate from 2016, which I very much enjoyed, and it still took me 4 years to look," Wallace explained. "This is going to take a while before I watch this one again."
The Commission on Presidential Debates said it was mulling structural changes to the remaining debates after Tuesday's widely panned event.A person close to the commission told CNN on Thursday that the organization has "not ruled out anything." When asked if giving the moderator the ability to cut off a candidate's microphone is on the table, the person said the commission is "considering everything."
Wallace, however, didn't appear sold on that idea.
"That's a pretty tough spot to put any moderator in," Wallace said.
Almost immediately after the debate got underway Tuesday night, Wallace lost control and was never was able to regain order.
The President repeatedly interrupted Biden and declined to obey the rules of the forum.Trump even spoke over Wallace, telling the Fox News anchor, "I guess I'm debating you, not him, but that's OK. I'm not surprised."
At one point, Wallace attempted to rein in the President, pleading with him to obey the rules.
"I think that the country would be better served if we allowed both people to speak with fewer interruptions," Wallace said. "I'm appealing to you, sir, to do that."
"Well, and him too!" Trump quipped back, referring to Biden.
"Well, frankly, you've been doing more interrupting than he has," Wallace countered.
The attempt was unsuccessful and the debate ended much like it started: in chaos.
In the aftermath, Wallace was the target of criticism from all sides of the political plane for the circus that aired on national television.
Some people sympathized with the difficult position Wallace was put in, suggesting that Trump had no intention of obeying the rules and contending there was little Wallace could do.
Supporters of Trump, however, skewered Wallace for supposedly being unfair to the President. Some of these critics included prominent Fox News personalties.
Still, Wallace earned the praise from Fox News executives. In a memo sent to the network, Fox News chief executive Suzanne Scott and president Jay Wallace said they were "extremely proud of his professionalism, skill and fortitude in a unique situation."
Last night while out I was listening to a local radio station that I'd never heard of before. Since I hardly drive anymore I canceled Sirius so I channel surfed and ran across this. I honestly thought the folks on this station were joking. The comments:
- Biden really looked pale.
- Biden looked pretty thin.
- Trump started off so angry because he has been the victim of lies over the past 4 years and he's angry about it.
- It was so weird that Biden's eyes looked black when they are actually blue.
- It's suspicious that Biden wouldn't let them check for an earpiece. And it turns out that he was actually wired. There are photos!
- Why didn't Biden take a drug test? You have to do that for any other job. He's got to be on drugs.
- Biden is too disrespectful to be president.
- Chris Wallace decided in the first few seconds that he was going to support Biden. He quickly changed the plan and was anti-Trump the whole debate.
I really did think they were kidding at first, especially about Biden's weight and skin tone. But they were dead serious. Have they looked at the orange man for so long that normal, human skin tones look odd?
Then last night, Trump claimed at his rally that Biden is refusing to participate in the next debates. There has been no such statement from the Biden camp. In fact, he has said the opposite.
My ballot arrived yesterday. It will be in by tomorrow.
Quote: @Skodin said:
@ AGRforever said:
Its like if there was only a third option instead of voting for either of these two morons.
jo20.com
I think many of us, even the liberals agree. 2 candidates, in the way that we choose them is moronic.
The two party system, the electoral college, zero term limits are parts of the system that must be changed moving forward.
I would love to have a 3, 4 party system. Breaking it down into various parties would allow for people to work together, find middle ground, make changes and test the merit of those changes. Even if those parties were the fringe elements of each major party, let's see them throw their policies out there and see the merit of them. Allows more Americans to participate in the political system that should serve them.
I disagree. In our current setup there is no reasonable way to go to more than 2 parties. Without ampaign finance reform and ranked choice voting any serious third party (and even not so serious) will result in one of the two major parties running away with elections. It is a bad idea with the way our political arena is structured.
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
@ Skodin said:
@ AGRforever said:
Its like if there was only a third option instead of voting for either of these two morons.
jo20.com
I think many of us, even the liberals agree. 2 candidates, in the way that we choose them is moronic.
The two party system, the electoral college, zero term limits are parts of the system that must be changed moving forward.
I would love to have a 3, 4 party system. Breaking it down into various parties would allow for people to work together, find middle ground, make changes and test the merit of those changes. Even if those parties were the fringe elements of each major party, let's see them throw their policies out there and see the merit of them. Allows more Americans to participate in the political system that should serve them.
I disagree. In our current setup there is no reasonable way to go to more than 2 parties. Without ampaign finance reform and ranked choice voting any serious third party (and even not so serious) will result in one of the two major parties running away with elections. It is a bad idea with the way our political arena is structured.
We agree about the end of the 2 party system. Campaign finance reform is a must and ranked choice should absolutely be implemented.
|
