A Deeply Fractured US

[KevinB]

Just saw a Chris Christie ad. No punches pulled.

He is running a 100% call Trump out campaign. I find it refreshing compared to the others who are trying to ignore his MULTIPLE legal woes.

 

[dimsum]

I'm gobsmacked. I thought that not withstanding his roots, he'd turned GOP. I'd never cared enough to check.

CBC Frontburner had a pretty good podcast episode on him earlier this week.

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/cbc-podcasts/209-front-burner/episode/15998481-conspiracy-campaign-rfks-presidential-bid

 

[Brad Sallows]

Every additional person after the front-runner (currently, DeSantis) who remains in the Republican primary too long increases the odds of Trump winning the primary. Republicans must entirely defragment opposition to Trump. No-hope candidates should drop out very early, if not before.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I guess times have changed.

Bob Dole, John Kerry, and John McCain were war heroes, but didn't get elected.

Governor DeSantis was awarded a Bronze Star with a V device for valor. But, it does not look like he will get in either.

Bone spurs. No one's mentioned bone spurs.

 

[brihard]

Bone spurs. No one's mentioned bone spurs.

I’m pretty sure that with everything else that’s happened in the years since the 2016 election, repeat draft dodging isn’t even noticeable or on the radar.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Bone spurs. No one's mentioned bone spurs.

Childhood asthma and multiple education deferrals. No one's mentioned childhood asthma and multiple education defferals

 

[Remius]

Childhood asthma and multiple education deferrals. No one's mentioned childhood asthma and multiple education defferals

Would definitely need multiple education referrals for the multiple people writing his exams…

 

[CBH99]

This is all done under the guise of justice but the true purpose is to damage Biden's leading opponent in the run up to the next election. That has been and continues to be the modus operandi of the corrupt establishment.

The MSM can't help themselves either, Rachel Maddow is suggesting the DOJ should drop the charges in exchange for Trump pulling out of the 2024 race.

I will look for the link shortly, but I was genuinely jaw dropped when I watched Rachel Maddow bluntly state to her viewers "We will not be showing any footage of this Trump event, because blah blah blah blah..."

And all of the reasons given (the blah blah blah) was essentially an opinion driven narrative that clearly favoured one side of the political establishment over the other.



She is a self-described journalist who should be showing her viewers as much raw, unedited, non-narrated material as possible so the viewers themselves can make up their own minds.

When she boldly stated "We arent going to bother showing you this because we benefit from this other guy a lot more..." it hit me hard because a 'news organisation' was openly admitting to censoring political news, while at the same time defending it

 

[Blackadder1916]

I will look for the link shortly, but I was genuinely jaw dropped when I watched Rachel Maddow bluntly state to her viewers "We will not be showing any footage of this Trump event, because blah blah blah blah..."

And all of the reasons given (the blah blah blah) was essentially an opinion driven narrative that clearly favoured one side of the political establishment over the other.

She is a self-described journalist who should be showing her viewers as much raw, unedited, non-narrated material as possible so the viewers themselves can make up their own minds.

When she boldly stated "We arent going to bother showing you this because we benefit from this other guy a lot more..." it hit me hard because a 'news organisation' was openly admitting to censoring political news, while at the same time defending it

I don't watch MSNBC (or FOX, or CNN for that matter) enough to know if they have any programmes dedicated exclusively to news reporting. My guess is that at least CNN (being the originator of "cable news" and at one time being a trusted source - we always had it on during the Gulf War, it occasionally provided some real time intelligence forewarning when we had incoming patients) still has at least a minimum of true news reporting in addition to the "commentary" that is the meat and potatoes of all the other American cable networks. And "commentary" is what makes the difference between what "journalists" do and what individuals such as Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson or pick a dozen or a gross of any other talking heads on cable "news" do. I don't know if Maddow, either now or in the past, categorized herself as a journalist - I also don't know if she ever did a straight reporting job.

In a quick scramble to find the definitive definition of "journalist", I found this that very aptly aligns with my definition opinion (i.e., I'm commenting).

Tucker Carlson is a political commentator, not a reporter for factual news - The Ticker

On the April 26 edition for “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Carlson equated children wearing masks in public to child abuse and urged viewers to call the police or send a message to other mask-wearers. Carlson justifies this by claiming that the mask-wearers are the aggressors and wearing one is...

theticker.org

Journalists report on the news and commentators comment on the news.

But are "news outlets" (I use the term lightly - my reason self-explanatory, see above) obligated to to provide real-time, live, unedited coverage of anything? But let's stick to the political realm since that's what this thread (or at least the latest swerve) is about. How is the viewing of an event, consideration of the content/activity and then the reporting of that event censorship? I'm assuming that MSNBC later reported on, or at least commented on, what Trump had to say at his rally - probably unfavourably. Does the "equal opportunity" requirement of FCC programming rules apply? https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/political_programming_fact_sheet.pdf

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is always some "news" reporting, but broadcast news right down to small city/community stations is close to worthless. You could probably read the entire transcript of a half-hour program in a few minutes, and much of it would be 1 part introduction of important issue/event, 5 parts interviewing some arbitrary person/people about how the issue has affected them. The human interest angle may be what draws viewers, but it has no information value. Then there is all the air-headed banter.

Agencies have quite openly declared intent to suit prejudices, pretending that lopsided coverage is justifiable in view of some ("safety"?) concern or other, or dismissing matters entirely as "local news" or "not newsworthy".

It's hard to find a program in which some articulate person simply reads out item after item of pieces that simply lay down what-where-when.

As for Trump, he's life blood (ratings) to progressive-leaning agencies in the US. For some reason people who don't like him do like to hear about whatever today's outrage is.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ok, but did you read the indictment?

Yes I did, hence my comment.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I like what a furious President Eisenhower said: "I am about ready to go put my uniform on".

Ron DeSantis is the only military veteran in either party I can think of who is being considered, or potentially may be considered, for Commander in Chief.

As an historical footnote, every Commander in Chief since FDR and before Bill Clinton was a military veteran.

In the 2024 Presidential race, does military service still matter?

The Dems had a decent candidate with military service, but they pushed her out of the party for not being woke enough.

 

[brihard]

Yes I did, hence my comment.

Excellent, then I promise to do my best to remember that and stop asking. Nice that someone is actually willing to take the time to do it.

So, what is it that causes you to believe that the elements of seditious conspiracy were not established in court? Prosecuting a crime doesn’t depend on that crime being done well, effectively, or intelligently. One can be a seditionist and still an idiot. Bearing in mind that numerous convictions have been reached by juries, I’m definitely curious what you see here that the court, in multiple trials, didn’t. Bear in mind also that the indictment is a probable cause document, and isn’t more than a surface scan of the body of evidence.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The Dems had a decent candidate with military service, but they pushed her out of the party for not being woke enough.

I'm assuming you are referring to Tulsi Gabbard. I would propose that she was a Democrat of convenience. Though I believe most politicians do not religiously adhere to the standard beliefs of their parties, most do have principles. But to be a successful for a politician to be elected they often have to bend to the electorate. In Hawaii, that generally means being a Democrat, whether one is in local, state or federal office. There have been the occasional Republican success story, but they have been outliers and more significantly happened during different eras than the one in which Ms. Gabbard entered the political arena. If she had been born, raised and lived in a state with a more reddish tinge, she likely would have been in the GOP.

Gabbard would not be first or last to select party membership based on wanting success. The example that always first comes to my mind is John Crosbie.

 

[mariomike]

The Dems had a decent candidate with military service, but they pushed her out of the party for not being woke enough.

There is only one way to reset this and that is a Trump POTUS 47 followed by a house cleaning of epic proportions, then resignation after two or three years into the term and handover to the VP (hopefully Tulsi Gabbard) to finish the term and run for a second.

Dream Team?

Donald Trump allies floating Tulsi Gabbard as 2024 running mate, report says

‘Sure, they stand up for you on a couple issues, but they hate you on everything else,’ GOP strategist says

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Brad Sallows]

Neo-cons were Republicans of convenience, and somehow have become a yardstick against which contemporary Republicans are measured to determine "extremism". Donald Trump used to be a Democrat. Gabbard is by inspection a centrist.

Always keep in mind that progressives are changing position more rapidly than conservatives (pretty much by definition).

 

[RangerRay]

I'm assuming you are referring to Tulsi Gabbard. I would propose that she was a Democrat of convenience. Though I believe most politicians do not religiously adhere to the standard beliefs of their parties, most do have principles. But to be a successful for a politician to be elected they often have to bend to the electorate. In Hawaii, that generally means being a Democrat, whether one is in local, state or federal office. There have been the occasional Republican success story, but they have been outliers and more significantly happened during different eras than the one in which Ms. Gabbard entered the political arena. If she had been born, raised and lived in a state with a more reddish tinge, she likely would have been in the GOP.

Gabbard would not be first or last to select party membership based on wanting success. The example that always first comes to my mind is John Crosbie.

Gabbard proves the Horseshoe Theory of politics. She’s like all the other Tankies that suddenly found a home in the Republican Party.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Defections are not frequent, but so far they all seem to be Democrat -> Independent/Republican. That isn't meaningless.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't watch MSNBC (or FOX, or CNN for that matter) enough to know if they have any programmes dedicated exclusively to news reporting. My guess is that at least CNN (being the originator of "cable news" and at one time being a trusted source - we always had it on during the Gulf War, it occasionally provided some real time intelligence forewarning when we had incoming patients) still has at least a minimum of true news reporting in addition to the "commentary" that is the meat and potatoes of all the other American cable networks. And "commentary" is what makes the difference between what "journalists" do and what individuals such as Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson or pick a dozen or a gross of any other talking heads on cable "news" do. I don't know if Maddow, either now or in the past, categorized herself as a journalist - I also don't know if she ever did a straight reporting job.

In a quick scramble to find the definitive definition of "journalist", I found this that very aptly aligns with my definition opinion (i.e., I'm commenting).

Tucker Carlson is a political commentator, not a reporter for factual news - The Ticker

On the April 26 edition for “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Carlson equated children wearing masks in public to child abuse and urged viewers to call the police or send a message to other mask-wearers. Carlson justifies this by claiming that the mask-wearers are the aggressors and wearing one is...

theticker.org

But are "news outlets" (I use the term lightly - my reason self-explanatory, see above) obligated to to provide real-time, live, unedited coverage of anything? But let's stick to the political realm since that's what this thread (or at least the latest swerve) is about. How is the viewing of an event, consideration of the content/activity and then the reporting of that event censorship? I'm assuming that MSNBC later reported on, or at least commented on, what Trump had to say at his rally - probably unfavourably. Does the "equal opportunity" requirement of FCC programming rules apply? https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/political_programming_fact_sheet.pdf

Any program that is so mercenary as to actually state the won't cover certain candidates is not a news organization. They are opinion programs like The View, which is the absolute whale shit of garbage television. The opinions of people like Maddow and Morning Joe, who are not journalists but two bit hack actors, mean nothing to educated, astute people and voters. They don't even watch the drivel that spews from the spiteful, moronic Jerry Springer wannabes. "Joe Biden, DNA results prove you ARE the grandfather."

 

[KevinB]

Neo-cons were Republicans of convenience, and somehow have become a yardstick against which contemporary Republicans are measured to determine "extremism". Donald Trump used to be a Democrat. Gabbard is by inspection a centrist.

Always keep in mind that progressives are changing position more rapidly than conservatives (pretty much by definition).

Gabbard is a lunatic.
She’s a Kremlin mouthpiece at best without an ounce anymore of credibility or individual thought (or integrity).