Holy crap - this has to stop!

[Divine Wind]

Last civil war took 600,000 lives. It's unconscionable that we could go that route again. Besides, there's no Mason-Dixon line in the sand. What would happen? Instead of Sherman burning Atlanta we would have rednecks burning L.A.?

We won't have a civil war for one major reason: too many Americans are spineless shits more concerned about their iPhones and Beemers to pick up a weapon.

A few riots and a few mass shootings do not a Civil War make.

Well for starters, speech and expression are gonna get shut down. Town Halls??? Impossible.. Political figures giving graduation speeches? Not gonna happen. Folks are gonna turn off the annoying noise and make their own.

The NEW Social Media is gonna be "filtered" for news and hate speech. Creating further polarization and isolation. And with no 3rd estate having any credibility left --- the polarization is just gonna broach violence. There's nothing to moderate the anger and frustration over political POWER.

This ain't about policy. It ain't about solving problems. It's ALL about struggle to CONTROL the power that the Feds TAKEN from the Constitution to micromanage EVERY ASPECT of people's lives. Nothing to do with money. Because 1/2 the lobbyists in D.C. would pack up and leave tomorrow if every congress critter didn't TAKE the power to make SOME companies win and others lose. Lobbying is a defensive art. Not an offensive art. You take away the ability to favor ONE company over ANOTHER and the money and the power and the LOBBYISTS -- simply disappear.... Neither party Dem or Rep will do that. Because that's the PRIZE for "WINNING"...

I want to interject something...on social media. It's already filtered by algorithm's that what you what they think you want creating millions of safe spaces.

I'm doing a lot of thinking about the roll of media here.

We have laws that require products be what they are labeled. You can no longer adulterate flour with plaster of Paris. We laws against libel and slander. I have no problem with private entities trying to weed out fake news from their news feeds ...

I use Google as a search engine. I don't have an FB account or a news feed or anything else, just USMB and going to links from here. I occasionally google a topic raised here just to see if it's true. So would Google have an idea of what I want to hear? That's pretty messed up, but one day when I requested pics of a snarling dog, I was getting cute puppies, mostly. Do people not take pictures of snarling dogs (I wouldn't, I'd be running the other way) but it did seem weird. Does Google know (or think they know) I'm all sweetness and light and don't really want to see snarling dogs?

I don't get news from social media but a lot of people apparently do.

Yo...yo...you mean you haven't subscribed to Trumps Twitter page? I'm aghast!

Actually, I do subscribe but don't consider it news. I consider it "Straight from the horse's (or jackass's) mouth".

 

[Divine Wind]

I agree. It would have helped a lot. I've voted the third party ticket plenty of times and it frustrates me too that people consider it a thrown away vote. It wouldn't be if the third party was treated equally.
Putting them on the debate schedule would have helped a lot. How does that get fixed?

The whole Congressional rules and process are mired in collusion to control power and the elected representatives under 2 banners. Voters focus on THAT "balance of power" and just trade masters when they vote for "winners".. Just having 3 votes in the Senate, maybe 10 in the House that can honestly SPEAK and VOTE and MOCK the other 2 parties without fear of retribution --- is the winning prescription. If vote margins are tight NOW -- imagine the effect of taking a dozen of those seats and giving them to leadership that will RIDICULE the senseless Dem/Rep conflict and EMPHASIS on obtaining and retaining power.

Ballot access is another key. Run those races where the Reps or Dems don't run "losing races" and disenfranchise their ENTIRE constituency... Take DOWN a bunch of senile old codgers who should have quit long ago... Put INDEPENDENT voices in enough seats to show what honesty and humility in serving was all about in the past..

I think you're probably right that the Libertarian Party will have to start local and grow upwards, getting into the House and Senate before jumping to the #1 seat. I don't recall a Libertarian running for office in Maine, at least not in my district. We are almost half Independents in Maine, though, and it would be a perfectly reasonable place to send up a trial balloon. Will we be seeing you around?

I've signed up as a policy writer and curator for a National Project Wiki.. To be used by all Libertarian candidates. We're not waiting for 2018, we're gonna start getting coverage very soon..

10 or 15 Indies in Congress would make a HUGE difference. And there are LParty candidates running in every state --- every cycle.. But due to ballot access restrictions and roadblocks, MANY states DON'T ALLOW identifications as anything BUT Rep or Dem or Indie. (most of those demand draconian amounts of petitions to dissuade getting your party identified every cycle) That's gotta change.. So I'd have to check, but maybe that's WHY you have so many Indies on the ballot in Maine.

From my humble observations most of the so called independents caucus with the democrats!

If you're talking about Independent voters, I've heard the opposite. Maybe it depends on where you live. As for Independent pols, you could be right. REAL Independent voters vote for who they like, and frig the party.

I think he meant Congresscritters with an "I" after their name.

 

[Divine Wind]

Pogo's exemplifies the sort of person who'd commit violence

It wouldn't surprise me to read someone shot up a church or a Tea Party meeting and Pogo is never seen on this forum again.

Pogo's exemplifies the sort of person who'd commit violence and you, ma'm, are egging him on.

No- YOU are the egger here -- you just accused two of us of being mass murderers, sticking your nose into some exchange you yourself admitted you didn't even see.

FYI I've never committed an act of violence in my life, but you're making a strong case for me to reconsider.
Now fuck off and go MYOB.

I hope the mods clean this shit up. Gadfly instigators like this are exactly the problem here.

He's projecting, for some reason. Don't take it personally.
And here I was enjoying this thread.

Awww, what happened to "Let's not do teaming here"?

No worries. You're free to team up with your good friend Pogo and I'm free to disagree with those who reply to discussions with comments like "you're a cantankerous fuck", "Go sleep it off, Nutbag" and, my personal favorite, "Now fuck off and go MYOB".

If you want to claim such a person is "one of the most thoughtful and reasonable posters here", that's your choice, ma'm. My choice is to disagree and explain why I think he's unreasonable, overly emotional and, IMHO, probably violent when things don't go his way.

FWIW, lots of wife abusers don't believe they are being abusive.

Domestic Violence and Abuse: Recognizing the Signs of an Abusive Relationship and Getting Help
There are many signs of an abusive relationship. The most telling sign is fear of your partner. If you feel like you have to walk on eggshells around your partner—constantly watching what you say and do in order to avoid a blow-up—chances are your relationship is unhealthy and abusive. Other signs that you may be in an abusive relationship include a partner who belittles you or tries to control you, and feelings of self-loathing, helplessness, and desperation.

Characteristics of Abusers
Abusers frequently have the following characteristics:

• Often blow up in anger at small incidents. He or she is often easily insulted, claiming hurt feelings when he or she is really very angry.
• Are excessively jealous: At the beginning of a relationship, an abuser may claim that jealousy is a sign of his or her love. Jealousy has nothing to do with love.
• Like to isolate victim: He or she may try to cut you off from social supports, accusing the people who act as your support network of "causing trouble."
• Have a poor self-image; are insecure.
• Blame others for their own problems.
• Blame others for their own feelings and are very manipulative. An abusive person will often say "you make me mad", "you’re hurting me by not doing what I ask", or "I can’t help being angry".
• Often are alcohol or drug abusers.
• May have a family history of violence.
• May be cruel to animals and/or children.
• May have a fascination with weapons.
• May think it is okay to solve conflicts with violence.
• Often make threats of violence, breaking or striking objects.
• Often use physical force during arguments.
• Often use verbal threats such as, "I’ll slap your mouth off", "I’ll kill you", or "I’ll break your neck". Abusers may try to excuse this behaviour by saying, "everybody talks like that".
• May hold rigid stereotypical views of the roles of men and women. The abuser may see women as inferior to men, stupid, and unable to be a whole person without a relationship.
• Are very controlling of others. Controlling behaviours often grow to the point where victims are not allowed to make personal decisions.
• May act out instead of expressing themselves verbally.
• May be quick to become involved in relationships. Many battered women dated or knew their abuser for less than six months before they were engaged or living together.
• May have unrealistic expectations. The abuser may expect his or her partner to fulfill all his or her needs. The abusive person may say, “If you love me, I’m all you need- you’re all I need".
• May use "playful" force during sex, and/or may want to act out sexual fantasies in which the victim is helpless.
• May say things that are intentionally cruel and hurtful in order to degrade, humiliate, or run down the victim’s accomplishments.
• Tend to be moody and unpredictable. They may be nice one minute and the next minute explosive. Explosiveness and mood swings are typical of men who beat their partners.
• May have a history of battering: the abuser may admit to hitting others in the past, but will claim the victim “asked for” it. An abuser will beat any woman he is with; situational circumstances do not make a person abusive.

 

[Divine Wind]

Thanks to you and TN, I started looking into this Libertarian Party prior to their convention. I looked at articles and write ups on the candidates, and I read your posts and I STILL got more and more confused about what it would look like. Then I watched the televised portion of the convention and it was obvious that the Party has not yet found its professional footing. I've seen town meetings a lot more together than that was. You folks don't have to be slick and shiny and bullshit driven but you do need to have your act together. I'd welcome it; at least knowing what a Libertarian government would look like would be a help. Be ready to answer those questions next time, is my advice. And if an attention whore gets on stage, don't let him strip for five minutes before anyone gets their finger out of their butt and does something about it.

There are a few problems with a third party.

One is that many of us vote to keep the opposing party out less than to get our person in. Trump was not my choice, but it was either vote for him or Hillary may get in. So yes, voting a third party (not that there is one I like) would have helped usher Bill and Hillary back into the White House, and there was just too much at stake given the Supreme Court vacancy.

But even if by some miracle a third party candidate would get in, he or she would not be able to accomplish anything. They would be a political outsider and the other two parties would never let them get their agendas passed. Trump is an outsider, but he at least belongs to the Republican party, and look how hard of a time his own party members are giving him!

Which is what happened with GHW Bush in 1992 and Gore in 2000. After this debacle (for Hillary!) maybe Congress will finally take a serious look at election reform. Specifically to all people to rank their choices versus only picking one and letting winner take all.

Still, I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil and will always vote my conscience from now on.

Maine voted in ranked choice voting in 2016. The powers that be are saying some piece of it violates the State Constitution. I don't think they like the idea much, which makes me like it even more.

Maine also splits its electoral vote by Congressional district, which makes it at least partially independent of the Electoral College's effect of paving over the voices of those in the state who vote outside of the majority. Unfortunately only one other state does that. In all other states the votes of those who vote outside of the majority are effectively cancelled --- which means there's no reason for anyone to vote in the first place because it's not going to make a damn bit of difference. With that going on it's a small miracle that even a shabby 55% of the electorate bothers to vote (that's what it was in 2016 -- 45% of us said, "what's the point?"

When we have millions upon millions of votes being cancelled simply because voters 400 miles away went another direction, that's state mob rule. And if the state in question is already known to tilt "red" or tilt "blue", the only reason to vote is to make a tiny tiny statement against the system by casting a third party vote --- which by definition of that state already being locked in means that 3P vote is going nowhere anyway.

Whether designed to or not the 'winner take all' aspect of the EC system ensures that no third party may ever challenge the Duopoly, which is why we've been stuck with it for a century and a half. I don't know why we all can't see that.

As someone described above a voter may detest candidate A but detest candidate B even more, leading them to vote for A solely to block B like a giant game of tic tac toe. That's not a good reason to vote for A but the Duopoly knows this and it completely removes their burden of running competent candidates and the whole thing becomes nothing more than a giant horse race the Duopoly wins every time.

And every four years we figure this out, and every four yeas we do nothing about it, and the next time around we do the same thing, expecting different results.

Fifty-five percent participation. That's atrocious. We shouldn't lie back and accept that.

Many months ago, I conversed with a poster here who went into great specifics about a movement to abolish the E.C. It is a real "thing," although it isn't getting much "airtime" anywhere. There's a petition and such.
The "tiny statement made by a 3P vote" is what got us that miserable Governor Paul LePage, most say; it is the reason the majority of voters now want ranked choice voting. The Independent Elliot Cutler got a significant % of votes that most likely would have gone to the Democrat. Why tf we gave LePage a second term is anyone's guess, but I believe it has something to do with a very weak Democratic candidate and the fact that LePage was less combative and irrational in his first term; the devil you know....
As LePage himself says, he was Trump before Trump was Trump. And it's true, but people didn't learn from our mistake.

Thanks to you and TN, I started looking into this Libertarian Party prior to their convention. I looked at articles and write ups on the candidates, and I read your posts and I STILL got more and more confused about what it would look like. Then I watched the televised portion of the convention and it was obvious that the Party has not yet found its professional footing. I've seen town meetings a lot more together than that was. You folks don't have to be slick and shiny and bullshit driven but you do need to have your act together. I'd welcome it; at least knowing what a Libertarian government would look like would be a help. Be ready to answer those questions next time, is my advice. And if an attention whore gets on stage, don't let him strip for five minutes before anyone gets their finger out of their butt and does something about it.

There are a few problems with a third party.

One is that many of us vote to keep the opposing party out less than to get our person in. Trump was not my choice, but it was either vote for him or Hillary may get in. So yes, voting a third party (not that there is one I like) would have helped usher Bill and Hillary back into the White House, and there was just too much at stake given the Supreme Court vacancy.

But even if by some miracle a third party candidate would get in, he or she would not be able to accomplish anything. They would be a political outsider and the other two parties would never let them get their agendas passed. Trump is an outsider, but he at least belongs to the Republican party, and look how hard of a time his own party members are giving him!

Which is what happened with GHW Bush in 1992 and Gore in 2000. After this debacle (for Hillary!) maybe Congress will finally take a serious look at election reform. Specifically to all people to rank their choices versus only picking one and letting winner take all.

Still, I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil and will always vote my conscience from now on.

Maine voted in ranked choice voting in 2016. The powers that be are saying some piece of it violates the State Constitution. I don't think they like the idea much, which makes me like it even more.

Maine also splits its electoral vote by Congressional district, which makes it at least partially independent of the Electoral College's effect of paving over the voices of those in the state who vote outside of the majority. Unfortunately only one other state does that. In all other states the votes of those who vote outside of the majority are effectively cancelled --- which means there's no reason for anyone to vote in the first place because it's not going to make a damn bit of difference. With that going on it's a small miracle that even a shabby 55% of the electorate bothers to vote (that's what it was in 2016 -- 45% of us said, "what's the point?"

When we have millions upon millions of votes being cancelled simply because voters 400 miles away went another direction, that's state mob rule. And if the state in question is already known to tilt "red" or tilt "blue", the only reason to vote is to make a tiny tiny statement against the system by casting a third party vote --- which by definition of that state already being locked in means that 3P vote is going nowhere anyway.

Whether designed to or not the 'winner take all' aspect of the EC system ensures that no third party may ever challenge the Duopoly, which is why we've been stuck with it for a century and a half. I don't know why we all can't see that.

As someone described above a voter may detest candidate A but detest candidate B even more, leading them to vote for A solely to block B like a giant game of tic tac toe. That's not a good reason to vote for A but the Duopoly knows this and it completely removes their burden of running competent candidates and the whole thing becomes nothing more than a giant horse race the Duopoly wins every time.

And every four years we figure this out, and every four yeas we do nothing about it, and the next time around we do the same thing, expecting different results.

Fifty-five percent participation. That's atrocious. We shouldn't lie back and accept that.

Many months ago, I conversed with a poster here who went into great specifics about a movement to abolish the E.C. It is a real "thing," although it isn't getting much "airtime" anywhere. There's a petition and such.
The "tiny statement made by a 3P vote" is what got us that miserable Governor Paul LePage, most say; it is the reason the majority of voters now want ranked choice voting. The Independent Elliot Cutler got a significant % of votes that most likely would have gone to the Democrat. Why tf we gave LePage a second term is anyone's guess, but I believe it has something to do with a very weak Democratic candidate and the fact that LePage was less combative and irrational in his first term; the devil you know....
As LePage himself says, he was Trump before Trump was Trump. And it's true, but people didn't learn from our mistake.

I favor ranked voting, but we're a long way from seeing Congress change the Constitution and the Electoral College. If we see enough states change to ranked voting, I think there'd be enough momentum to put it before Congress.

Same goes for the Libertarian party. No frickin' way is a Libertarian ever going to be President until a majority of states are Libertarian.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Congressmen (including da wimmens) actually represent their constituents fairly well.

Attacking them is attacking the wrong people. It was bad when that blond woman got shot and it's bad now.

The "Free Press" is over there pouring gas on the flames, too.

The press needs reigned in. For real.

That's some interesting fascism there. And when Trump was saying "beat the shit out of them", did you speak out against him, too?

 

[Divine Wind]

Congressmen (including da wimmens) actually represent their constituents fairly well.

Attacking them is attacking the wrong people. It was bad when that blond woman got shot and it's bad now.

The "Free Press" is over there pouring gas on the flames, too.

The press needs reigned in. For real.

While I think many Congressional reps try to represent an increasingly larger number of people, the partisanship in modern US politics has neutered many of them. They'd rather do nothing at all rather than to risk the wrath of very loud but relatively small, group of partisan assholes.

Why do you think "the free press" is pouring gas on problems? What problems and why would they do it?

What are you proposing be done to rein in the press?

That's some interesting fascism there. And when Trump was saying "beat the shit out of them", did you speak out against him, too?

I think most Americans were shocked and disgusted by Trump's advocation of violence, but since most people thought he'd never win, it was just a small blip on their radar.

 

[Pogo]

Congressmen (including da wimmens) actually represent their constituents fairly well.

Attacking them is attacking the wrong people. It was bad when that blond woman got shot and it's bad now.

The "Free Press" is over there pouring gas on the flames, too.

The press needs reigned in. For real.

That's some interesting fascism there. And when Trump was saying "beat the shit out of them", did you speak out against him, too?

The good news is, Rump has multiple lawsuits against him filed by those same minions he incited to violence, exactly for that reason. See post 1509.

Always good to see when people finally figure out they've been manipulated and then go do something about it.

 

[Dr Grump]

Ok, then why do you want the muzzies here? More diversity? Afraid their feelings will be hurt? We need them to do jobs that Americans won't do?

Why not stop everybody from coming in? Why stop at Muslims? I couldn't give a shit about their feelings. However, are they highly qualified at able to bring more to the table than same white trailer trash deplorable? Some are, some aren't. But if you want to be a xenophobe that's one you...

 

[Dr Grump]

BREAKING : The Past SIX Presidents Have “Banned Immigrants”
BREAKING NEWS BY AMY MORENO JANUARY 29, 2017

Obama and his five presidential predecessors all used their executive powers to temporarily ban certain immigrants, including Muslims from entering the United States.

Were liberals outraged and protesting over that?

The protests and outrage we’re witnessing now appears to be more anti-Trump nonsense from the bitter left.

From Washington Examiner
BREAKING : The Past SIX Presidents Have "Banned Immigrants"

You've already made this point in this thread and I addressed. I'm not doing it again....

 

[Dr Grump]

IF, as you futilely try to infer that the ban is against Muslims, that, as you know is a lie. Why keep repeating the same lie?

IF the ban was against Muslims, Saudi Arabia and many other nations would be included. The nations named are the same as those named by petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama. They are nations in chaos, nations which have no birth records or anything else about their citizens. The nations in question don't know who are their citizens or anything about them much less anyone else.

Iran doesn't meet that criteria. Neither does Sudan. That being said, Obama banned them for different reasons....

 

[Pogo]

Meanwhile back in the land of the topic ---- here's the same old thing polarization using the same old thing Composition Fallacy, not on this board but in RW politics:

>> CHAMBLEE, GA. -- Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Karen Handel are both speaking out against an ad appearing to link Ossoff to Wednesday’s shooting at a Republican baseball practice outside of Washington, D.C.

The television spot, which was produced by the Principled PAC, shows House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) on a stretcher after the shooting, along with the sound of gunshots.

“The unhinged left is endorsing and applauding shooting Republicans,” the ad’s narrator says.

“When will it stop? It won’t if Jon Ossoff wins on Tuesday,” the narrator continues. << --- The Hill​

Get that? Jon Ossoff is a mass shooter now. This beats the pants off "would you be less willing to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child". They're actually suggesting somebody's running for Congress so they can sniper baseball players.

Unfuckingbelievable. That's what they think they need to say to win. Let's hope this comes back to bite them in the ass. Hard.

 

[Dr Grump]

What we have going on is judicial tyranny, and yes, they should do something about it. To abuse their power by falsely using the Constitution to promote their personal political agenda should have them kicked off of the bench.

You don't know what Trump knows.....I don't know what Trump knows, but the most important thing is judges do not know what Trump knows. That's the problem.

There is not one thing in Trump's executive order that displays prejudice. The lying judges stated it was an act against Muslims, yet could not explain why it is most people from Muslim countries were still allowed to come here. It was a bold faced lie, again....to forward their personal political agenda.

Democrats better pray that no terrorist attack (especially a major one) is executed by a foreigner from one of those countries; people that had the blessing of a liberal judge to come here and commit such an act. Their name would be "mud" for at least a decade or more.

Yes, I agree Trump is a tyrant. And thus why your political system sucks.
If they have abused their power why are the not being punished (it is a rhetorical question - they haven't abused their power. This happens all the time under all presidents).

Of course it is prejudice. He is banning people from particular countries just because they are muslims. No other reason.

You really suffer comprehension problems, don't cha? So let's try this again:

Most Muslims from Muslim countries would still be allowed to enter the USA under Trump's executive order. HTF can you say it's a ban on Muslims if most are still allowed to come here? You can't because it's a PROVEN lie. It's proven in the order and it's been proven to the radical judges. There is nothing in the EO that even mentions Muslims.

Obama mocks Trump, but has barred immigrants, many Muslim, 6 times

There are a half a dozen non-Muslim countries in Africa, a couple in central america and Venezuela in South America that are total basket cases. Why aren't they banned?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Congressmen (including da wimmens) actually represent their constituents fairly well.

Attacking them is attacking the wrong people. It was bad when that blond woman got shot and it's bad now.

The "Free Press" is over there pouring gas on the flames, too.

The press needs reigned in. For real.

That's some interesting fascism there. And when Trump was saying "beat the shit out of them", did you speak out against him, too?

Link to quote?


HuffPo posted this:

Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice | HuffPost

One of their writers posted this:

Jesse Benn on Twitter


CNN is always posting half-truths or lies. That's why this happened Friday:

 

[Dr Grump]

Well then you should KNOW that Saudi Arabia has the EXACT SAME defacto "muslim ban" as Trump has proposed. Several other Arab states have posted "their muslim bans" publicly. The latest being Kuwait who lists the same group of states included the Trump travel ban. They must be Islamophobes --- huh???

Ah, yes, Saudi Arabia, that beacon of human rights enlightenment...Let's compare the US to SA....

 

[Pogo]

Congressmen (including da wimmens) actually represent their constituents fairly well.

Attacking them is attacking the wrong people. It was bad when that blond woman got shot and it's bad now.

The "Free Press" is over there pouring gas on the flames, too.

The press needs reigned in. For real.

That's some interesting fascism there. And when Trump was saying "beat the shit out of them", did you speak out against him, too?

Link to quote?


HuffPo posted this:

Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice | HuffPost

One of their writers posted this:

Jesse Benn on Twitter


CNN is always posting half-truths or lies. That's why this happened Friday:

Ummmm..... those aren't news links. That's an op-ed, and a Twit.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Congressmen (including da wimmens) actually represent their constituents fairly well.

Attacking them is attacking the wrong people. It was bad when that blond woman got shot and it's bad now.

The "Free Press" is over there pouring gas on the flames, too.

The press needs reigned in. For real.

That's some interesting fascism there. And when Trump was saying "beat the shit out of them", did you speak out against him, too?

Congressmen (including da wimmens) actually represent their constituents fairly well.

Attacking them is attacking the wrong people. It was bad when that blond woman got shot and it's bad now.

The "Free Press" is over there pouring gas on the flames, too.

The press needs reigned in. For real.

That's some interesting fascism there. And when Trump was saying "beat the shit out of them", did you speak out against him, too?

Link to quote?


HuffPo posted this:

Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice | HuffPost

One of their writers posted this:

Jesse Benn on Twitter


CNN is always posting half-truths or lies. That's why this happened Friday:

Ummmm..... those aren't news links. That's an op-ed, and a Twit.

They skew the news too, and you know it, Pogo. Why do you always squirm like a worm?

Do you really think I can't pull up 1/2 dozen times they have misconstrued the facts?

C'mon dude, I wrote a thread about it last year with multiple examples. It's common knowledge, for you to deny it

is just you being contrary for contrariness' sake.

 

[Pogo]

They skew the news too, and you know it, Pogo. Why do you always squirm like a worm?

Hey, why did you just conflate opinion with news?

Do you really think I can't pull up 1/2 dozen times they have misconstrued the facts?

Yep.

C'mon dude, I wrote a thread about it last year with multiple examples. It's common knowledge, for you to deny it

Oh good. I like mythbusting. Linkie?

is just you being contrary for contrariness' sake.

Is not.


News is news; opinion is opinion. You can't prove a point about the former by using examples of the latter.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What we have going on is judicial tyranny, and yes, they should do something about it. To abuse their power by falsely using the Constitution to promote their personal political agenda should have them kicked off of the bench.

You don't know what Trump knows.....I don't know what Trump knows, but the most important thing is judges do not know what Trump knows. That's the problem.

There is not one thing in Trump's executive order that displays prejudice. The lying judges stated it was an act against Muslims, yet could not explain why it is most people from Muslim countries were still allowed to come here. It was a bold faced lie, again....to forward their personal political agenda.

Democrats better pray that no terrorist attack (especially a major one) is executed by a foreigner from one of those countries; people that had the blessing of a liberal judge to come here and commit such an act. Their name would be "mud" for at least a decade or more.

Yes, I agree Trump is a tyrant. And thus why your political system sucks.
If they have abused their power why are the not being punished (it is a rhetorical question - they haven't abused their power. This happens all the time under all presidents).

Of course it is prejudice. He is banning people from particular countries just because they are muslims. No other reason.

You really suffer comprehension problems, don't cha? So let's try this again:

Most Muslims from Muslim countries would still be allowed to enter the USA under Trump's executive order. HTF can you say it's a ban on Muslims if most are still allowed to come here? You can't because it's a PROVEN lie. It's proven in the order and it's been proven to the radical judges. There is nothing in the EO that even mentions Muslims.

Obama mocks Trump, but has barred immigrants, many Muslim, 6 times

There are a half a dozen non-Muslim countries in Africa, a couple in central america and Venezuela in South America that are total basket cases. Why aren't they banned?

So WTF does that have to do with these activist judges?

 

[Coyote]

Who here wants violence?

Last civil war took 600,000 lives. It's unconscionable that we could go that route again. Besides, there's no Mason-Dixon line in the sand. What would happen? Instead of Sherman burning Atlanta we would have rednecks burning L.A.?

We won't have a civil war for one major reason: too many Americans are spineless shits more concerned about their iPhones and Beemers to pick up a weapon.

A few riots and a few mass shootings do not a Civil War make.

Well for starters, speech and expression are gonna get shut down. Town Halls??? Impossible.. Political figures giving graduation speeches? Not gonna happen. Folks are gonna turn off the annoying noise and make their own.

The NEW Social Media is gonna be "filtered" for news and hate speech. Creating further polarization and isolation. And with no 3rd estate having any credibility left --- the polarization is just gonna broach violence. There's nothing to moderate the anger and frustration over political POWER.

This ain't about policy. It ain't about solving problems. It's ALL about struggle to CONTROL the power that the Feds TAKEN from the Constitution to micromanage EVERY ASPECT of people's lives. Nothing to do with money. Because 1/2 the lobbyists in D.C. would pack up and leave tomorrow if every congress critter didn't TAKE the power to make SOME companies win and others lose. Lobbying is a defensive art. Not an offensive art. You take away the ability to favor ONE company over ANOTHER and the money and the power and the LOBBYISTS -- simply disappear.... Neither party Dem or Rep will do that. Because that's the PRIZE for "WINNING"...

I want to interject something...on social media. It's already filtered by algorithm's that what you what they think you want creating millions of safe spaces.

I'm doing a lot of thinking about the roll of media here.

We have laws that require products be what they are labeled. You can no longer adulterate flour with plaster of Paris. We laws against libel and slander. I have no problem with private entities trying to weed out fake news from their news feeds ...

Oh I definitely do have a problem with the filtering of fake news.. MAYBE not the filtering of bad content that can be clearly identified as "threats".. But at this point, and seeing what I see daily on USMB, I would have to put CNN, NYTimes, and WashPo in the "fake news" bin often.. And no "factchecker" would ever spin me otherwise.

That's NOT an "automated" judgement for machines to make right now.. That's ASKING for human bias to be disguised as "fact-checking"....

Everything has some human bias attached to it - it's impossible not to. I think fact checkers can run the gamut from good to bad, but aren't you throwing the baby out with the bathwater by rating them all charletons?

The problem is that none of us have access to first hand information, so how are you going to judge how trustworthy a particular source is? You have to trust something or someone at some point.

I know you bash snopes, but they've been accurate more often then not and they provide plenty of links to sources.

 

[Marion Morrison]

They skew the news too, and you know it, Pogo. Why do you always squirm like a worm?

Hey, why did you just conflate opinion with news?

Do you really think I can't pull up 1/2 dozen times they have misconstrued the facts?

Yep.

C'mon dude, I wrote a thread about it last year with multiple examples. It's common knowledge, for you to deny it

Oh good. I like mythbusting. Linkie?

is just you being contrary for contrariness' sake.

Is not.


News is news; opinion is opinion. You can't prove a point about the former by using examples of the latter.

I never claimed the 1st post was news. Not running off on a goose chase for your sorry ass, either.