jakee

Come off it. The only time anyone ever raises their arms like that for being a champion is if their teammates have just poured ice cold water down their neck as a celebration.

It's a shit sandwich for sure. I hope to god he has the good grace to drop out before the Convention but I doubt it. Still, at least for the left it is a moral conundrum to be faced. Those on the right never even hesitated. Not for Trump, not for Kavanaugh... Christ, it took Roy Moore being a pedophile for enough of them to stay home for him to lose by a point. They still have no qualms about voting for the guy who endorsed him though.

Sure she said it was friendly, but go watch the video again and tell me with a straight face that she was comfortable and happy with what he was doing.

What does that mean?

I'm unaware of any further accusations against Biden of sexual assault, just the wierdly inappropriate greeting stuff he does similar to when Bush goosed Merkel at the G8. Not great, but not in the same ballpark as Reade's accusation and all the accusations against Trump.

Let me get this straight - you do not want the media to cover any allegations of sexual assault against Joe Biden? Who are you planning to back as the 12 people who get to vote in the November election?

Do you have any reasoning to provide as to why Washington insiders are leftist, or why the makeup of the DC council has anything to do with it?

Whenever conservatives moan about Trump being treated unfairly I always think of the 'terrorist fist jab'. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that has been said about Trump by a remotely mainstream news source that comes close to being as unwarranted, uncalled-for, offensive, and disrespectful to the man and the office as that comment.

What does any of that have to do with whether Washington insiders are leftist?

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that the majority of Washington DC residents are "Washington insiders" and that the makeup of the Washington DC city council therefore reflects the political makeup of "Washington insiders"? You haven't yet come up with a credible reason why they're not a good source. Did you see that both the president and senior vice president of the think tank came over from the Cato Institute, formerly known as the Koch Foundation? I've heard that's an absolute hotbed of socialism. Besides, the statement attributed to them is so obviously supported by current events that it's practically axiomatic. Right now the former chief of the federal governments medical research agency is alleging that he was fired in the middle of the biggest medical research push in history because he pushed back against the President's touting of unproven medication. It's not limited to Trump (check out "why is congress so dumb" on WaPo) but he is certainly accelerating the process.

Which already puts them way ahead of the right. I hope this does get more publiity when the Coronavirus starts taking up less of the media output than it does now. I also hope that the people moaning about the lack of coverage of it now will also call for each of the credible allegations against Trump to be given equal time and exposure again as each credible allegation against Biden. Sound fair, Mark?

People who operate in or around the various branches of the Federal government in Washington DC. And if you have read far enough into their conspectus to see the reference to Washington insiders you would know this meaning (while also being the normal one that the vast majority of people would use) is glaringly obvious by the context. So again, why does aiming at Washington insiders make the leftist?

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that the term "Washington insider" refers to people involved with the local politics and running of the city of Washington DC?

Why on earth would that make them leftist?

Obviously. Their major problem is listening to Trump. Who has no idea why calls to poison centres have spiked since Thursday and takes no responsibility for it.

To be fair, when was the last time that there was an accusation against Trump or the Republicans in general that you didn’t either try and dismiss, or immediately counter with “but Hillary/Obama/Pelosi/Biden/the media”? Serious question.

No shit. See above.

Why 'far more' credible? Covering Coronavirus. Look, I absolutely agree that Biden should face a huge amount of scrutiny over these allegations and if it looks like they're true he should drop out or be kicked out (did you say the same abut Kavanaugh, btw?). However, claiming that the difference in the amount of coverage being given to each case must be an example of media bias is ludicrous. Open your eyes and look at the context of current events. Back then, what was competing with the Kavanaugh confirmation for front page news? Right now, how many stories are running multiple days on the front page of any news outlet that are not about Coronavirus? Quite literally, the last story to dominate the news cycle like this was 9/11 and the build up to the Afghan war, and to be honest after a month or two even that wasn't as all consuming anymore. You simply cannot compare coverage of any non-virus event happening now with any other event that happened at any other time. It's a fool's errand.

The media holding the President to account is in the public interest. The President airing his personal grievances and vendettas on Twitter is not.

Bill just quoted Trump's own Twitter feed. I'm not quite sure how the big bad media could be responsible for exaggerating or hate filtering that.

I miss Bill Cole.

In this case I believe you. But it's not surprising that others don't when so often what you say is not the truth.

That's the problem with all the lying you do in defense of Trump - a lot of people don't believe you anymore.

You will also never find any posts that claim my MO is to always try and find the good in any politician's actions - that's your thing (the current president is also, lets face it, truly unique in his history of criminality, narcissism and self serving behaviour. He started with the corruption and nepotism in his regime from day one and has never remotely earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.). So where are any examples of you trying to see the good behind anything remotely controversial Pelosi has done? And saying that you tried but couldn't doesn't fly. It should be just as easy to see the good in Pelosi no matter what she does, because when it comes to Trump you just make it up. You just invent it out of thin air and stick to it until it's proved wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's as simple to do that for dems as it is for reps. So why don't you?

It's hard not to just quote all the dialogue from that film, but there's another exchange that also brilliantly encapsulates the downside of making everyone shit-scared of you. Two guards outside Stalin's study hear the sound of him collapsing. Nothing happens for 5 seconds. Guard 1: Shouldn't we go in and check on him? Guard 2: Shouldn't you shut the fuck up before you get us both killed? Stalin isn't discovered until morning. And the guards were doomed anyway.