@Bwag actually no, I said "rational conservative", I know the concept may be hard to understand. Try again?
approxinfinity
17303 posts
@justanotherfan exactly. There is no objectivity. I find this deeply depressing. Plenty of half baked nonsense masquerading as fact, or even rational opinion. Where are the rational conservatives? The ones that say what Justice Stevens said about Kavanaugh? Why cant I find more of that in real life?
Nice Int by Jordan Lucas. Dodged about 5 tackles there, endzone to midfield.
Hill owned that last drive.
@Woodrow I'm saying they don't have the same close relationship with the Dems like Fox has with the Republicans. FOX would never ever say the Republicans were outplayed if the situation were reversed. They'd say how they the Republicans were screwed by the evil Democrats or whatever.
@mayjay Fox is basically state run media at this point. Why shouldn't CNN do the same thing? Take the talking points from the Democratic party and just run with them 24/7, just Fox does for the Republicans
party. Neither network is invested in deep journalism. Why not give up the ghost of integrity and just be the soulless trashy counterpoint to Fox News? It is their destiny.
@Marco I never locked the door with my buddy in the room, tackled a girl who was unaware of my intentions and put my hand over her mouth when she screamed, did you?
Note, i'm not for state run media, or news with an agenda. . But I think CNN should just be the Fake News opposite of Fox at this point. The fact that they aren't, makes me wonder where their interests truly lie.
I can dream of a tomorrow without either. But not a tomorrow with just one.
EDIT: yes I contradict myself below. I guess what I'm saying is that I have no interest in State run media. But it's what we have in Fox. I don't know how it can be fixed.
Saw this highlight this morning on CNN:
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/05/opinions/gop-outplayed-dems-opinion-zelizer/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Famp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org%2Fv%2Fs%2Famp.cnn.com%2Fcnn%2F2018%2F10%2F05%2Fopinions%2Fgop-outplayed-dems-opinion-zelizer%2Findex.html%3Famp_js_v%3D0.1%26usqp%3Dmq331AQICAEoAWABaAA%25 ↗
Also, I noticed that CNN did not show the Senators speeches about Kavanaugh yesterday, nor did Fox.
It seems that CNN is not helping the Democrats. They screwed up the presidential election by making people believe a Clinton win was a foregone conclusion and they're screwing the Democrats now by saying they were outplayed. If anything should be clear at this point in American 2 party politics, it is that PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU TELL THEM. Fox isn't news but it sure as hell is effective Republican propaganda. Any loyal Fox viewer eats sleeps and sh-ts the same rhetoric, ingests it wholesale and never picks at their food.
CNN isn't like that. Here we see CNN saying the Democrats were outplayed, but the fact is the Democrats did the right thing. As the Democrats who voted no in red states said, history will be the judge. They voted no on an unfit candidate, knowing that the Republicans would slam him though.
And this should be their platform, they do the right thing, and that should be echoed by CNN not as a losing position but as the long, consistent play, their brand. Except CNN isn't a puppet for the Democrats. In fact, I'm not sure they're even on the same side.
@jayballer73 blessed are the meek for they shall be the subject of our president's rally ridicule.
Shame on you, Senator Collins. Game over.
James Inhofe "innocent until proven guilty, thats what is on trial here". No, it's not a criminal trial, but good job toeing the party talking points.
Roy Blunt, on Merrick Garland treatment being compared to Kavanaugh's treatment: "theres no comparison. Before Merrick Garland, the last time a Supreme Court nominee was confirmed when nominated in a president's last year was 1985.
Guess why? Because Supreme Court justices don't decide to die.
Potter Stewart
(1915–1985)
Antonin Scalia
(1936–2016)
The transparent BS parade continues.
... and "we talked to all the witnesses I know of, regarding credible charges".
Ricky Rubio, today, speaking about Ford's allegations....
"it was also wrong to dismiss these allegations without looking into them as some did, almost like a reflex."
Ricky Rubio on Friday, Sept 28th, when he was in favor of voting on Kavanaugh and not having an FBI investigation:
“This entire ordeal is indicative of something that goes beyond the nomination before us. It has revealed how our culture has become increasingly sick and demented, unmoored from the values upon which this great nation was founded and which have allowed our society to flourish.I will not vote against the nomination of someone who I am otherwise inclined to support and in the process add credence to charges which have already done permanent damage to his reputation, on the basis of allegations for which there is no independent corroboration and which are at odds with everything else we have heard about his character". He also said Senators against had “disgraced themselves” and that this was a “dark moment in the Senate’s history.”
Such BS. Just own it dude.
@DoubleDD Ok. Which piece of information am I failing to account for? Not which opinion or rhetoric I'm disagreeing with, which information am I ignoring? For instance,the fact that you repeatedly have referred to the one person accusing Kavanaugh, ignoring that there are other accusers. Am I omitting something like that? The fact that he lied about being of age to drink and downplayed the extent of his drinking saying he never didn't know what was going on when many of his drinking friends have said they saw him drunk to the point of not knowing what was going on. Do you dispute that he mischaracterized his drinking? Do you dispute that he lied about drinking legally?
Here's what he said:
My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone.
@DoubleDD there are glaring omissions in your world view.
Like Durbin said, according to the Republican narrative Ford is both a credible person and this is also a smear campaign. She's either telling the truth or she isn't. But they don't need to choose which it is because they know Republican voters don't care. Somehow Ford is credible but Kavanaugh is a good man that doesn't lie. Its all magic.
C-SPAN is showing Dick Durbins response, CNN and Fox are not
John Cornyn is a piece of work.
"What good that could come out of this is if more women come forward with [allegations of sexual assault]".... So they too can be ignored.
I want you guys to ask yourself a question. You don't have to answer here. And I mean this not as a snark but I just hope you have a few instances that come to mind. I want you to ask yourself "when have I disagreed with Fox News?" I can ask myself the same of any news source I frequent and I have examples.
@DoubleDD thank you for my daily Fox News briefing.
@DoubleDD When Bill Clinton is nominated for the Supreme Court and I'm not a high schooler who didn't care about politics your question will start to make sense.
@DoubleDD again you are picking one talking point and ignoring all other problems that have been stated here as to why he is unfit. This isn't about whether I like him or not. It's whether he belongs on the Supreme Court.
@DoubleDD You should not portray people with differing view points as one lump entity and then form your beliefs as counterpoint to that fictional entity. This is straight out of the Fox News playbook. Come on man. Be better than that. Talk to individuals on the merits regarding the issue at hand.
@DoubleDD that question makes no sense.
@approxinfinity there's no point arguing with you about this because you ignore the meat of what people's problems with Kavanaugh are.
@DoubleDD I will take three women's allegations of sexual assault seriously even if it's a candidate selected by a Democratic president, yes. I will take lying under oath seriously, yes. I will take blatant partisan rhetoric being shouted at the Senate like an angry partisan hack seriously, yes. Come on man.
@DoubleDD I don't understand what you are saying.
Republican politicians are going to work the angles on what they are doing all the way to a confirmation, so their constituents can sleep at night. The whole thing is a farce. This is not how you select a Supreme Court Justice.
@Woodrow I have a problem with him lying under oath. To me that's a disqualifier from taking a lifetime seat on the highest court in the country.. i also believe that as a blackout drunk which has been confirmed by many people It is easy to believe three women that are accusing him with nothing to gain and everything to lose from doing so. If you want to turn a blind eye to all of that then I guess that's your prerogative.
@DoubleDD do you dispute that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath about his drinking?
@mayjay thank you for taking the time. :100: Well said.
@Bwag your definition of "good man" differs from mine
“The PEOPLE get it far better than the politicians,” Trump wrote. “Most importantly, this great life cannot be ruined by mean & despicable Democrats and totally uncorroborated allegations!”
"Trump – khuilo!"
"the Athletics, at $66 million, are the first team in 30 years to make the playoffs with baseball's lowest Opening Day payroll"
@BShark wow great endorsement! I hope nothing disrupts that feeling.
@mayjay true, they were Saudis; I was thinking of the people that were holed up with him but your point is a better one .. the attack may not have happened if the people that orchestrated it had a more favorable opinion of the US.
@Kcmatt7 exactly what @justanotherfan said. Reality is everything is global and our interdependance guarantees our survival as a species and the greatest good for the greatest number, not just Americans ( it is indivisible anyway)
@KirkIsMyHinrich yeah it's a coinflip for me on that series. I originally said "Rockies and Brewers" then realized they're facing each other now. I was really happy the Rockies took out the Cubs and as a Nationals fan I'm still mad we didn't offer Bud Black more money.
@nuleafjhawk excellent!
I want Indians, A's, Brewers and Braves.
@jayballer73 without looking I'm guessing the Yankees still have the biggest national fanbase.
@Crimsonorblue22 :) good one
@mayjay even if it's a 3 credit online course? (I might have to look at the KU coursebook)
@Woodrow and declining public sentiment is the backdrop to a foreground that is less than rosey.
@Kcmatt7 in terms of immigration, this administration has definitely taken a hard line and added official (ICE, pursuit of wall, etc.) and unofficial (family separation, etc.) measures. I agree that there were existing policies that predated Trump that were hard line. But there is more to their nationalist stance than immigration policy. They've gone after global treaties and trade alliances as well.
@Woodrow I don't think you can assume that the Russian government operates by the same standards as our government.
I don't think it's wise to dismiss the public opinion nations have of one another. I dont think you can assume how another nation's disapproval will manifest itself.
Saddam Hussein was not the only person with a negative opinion of the United States in Iraq. Bin Laden was not the only one with anti American sentiment in Afghanistan. I don't think we can assume we are dealing with only nuclear nation-states even if they immediately appear to be so, as in the case of Russia.
I am alarmed by the rise in nationalism / undermining of globalism we are seeing around the world and I think it is very dangerous.
Because they have a massive nuclear arsenal. Are you being serious? I can't tell if you're joking.