jakee

Where is he a self described liberal progressive and democrat? After the events of this thread so far you'll understand why I'm not going to just take your word for it.

Baaaahahahaha! We had one disgareement and in response you've been stalking my posts for years now only making personal comments without ever addressing a topic... and you want to talk about letting go? Gonna make a wild guess and say you don't own any mirrors!

Your school's politics are not your politics. Your parents' politics are not your politics. A car is rarely a political choice and people who go to Berkely listen to all kinds of music. More importantly though, the whole point of the article that he does not share NPR's opinions. So, do you know what his politics are? Do you know who he voted for? Or are you just making whatever assumption supports your point? Now seriously, if you want to talk about bias, do you actually know how their coverage of the Trump family's influence peddling from inside the White House compared to their coverage of Hunter's solo efforts?

Yeah, it’s really telling that he explains the politics of the people and places he came from, but he doesn’t say they are his politics. Who did he vote for? Who does he support in the upcoming election? You have no idea.

In other words, the supposed bias of NPR is your point, you’re just trying to dodge legitimate questions you know you can’t answer.

If you don't care about NPR bias, why are you talking about it? If mentioning Trump's wilful and open enabling of influence peddling by his family is 'derangement', then how utterly insane is the guy you quoted if he cares about anything Hunter Biden did? Why are you sharing the point of view of someone you think is crazier than a cuckoo clock?

A book review that they corrected within a day (and doesn’t even mention Russia but whatever). Ok so NPR’s literature department is biased but is subject to fair and balanced oversight. Is that the point you were trying to make? But again, what about their coverage of Jared, Ivanka and Trump giving them access to all the strings of US government power and influence while allowing them to exempt themselves from all ethics requirements? Did they do that story justice or did they display the same pro Trump bias as every other news organisation?

Yes it was your bad to claim they covered the Hunter story by proclaiming it a Russian hoax, and then continue lying about it in such a transparent manner long after it was clear that you could not support the claim. Now can you address how much they covered the real nepotism and influence peddling White House scandal of Trump, Jared and Ivanka?

It is also an outright and obvious lie to claim that was what you meant. It’s amazing that after so many years in this site you still don’t appear to realise your previous posts remain visible for people to read.

When you tell an outright lie, you’re lying. You explicitly and deliberately made the point that they did not ignore the story. This may be a surprise to you, but you cannot back that statement up by providing evidence that they did ignore the story, no matter how much of that evidence you have. And of course, the reason you said they did not ignore it was because you were deflecting from the Jared Kushner equivalence. How much time did NPR spend covering the nepotism and corruption in the Trump White House? In any fair and balanced world that should have been front page news every single day since Trump deliberately installed his own family members into positions of power in the Administration where they would be able to talk to foreign decision makers about their international businesses with the whole weight of the US government behind them. It certainly should have been on every channel every hour of every day after Jared received BILLIONS from the Saudi crown despite their own advisors saying there was no good business sense for it. Now unless you can show that constant coverage from NPR you’ll just have to deal with the fact that when it comes to nepotism and influence peddling they, like the rest of the US and global media, have been enormously biased in favour of the Trump clan.

I read it. You’re lying.

Indeed, and as well as the deliberately sinister aspects there are also a lot of unintended consequences. As an example, advertising analytics are apparently very good at figuring out when women are pregnant. Not only can they just grab the keywords from social media announcements, but they can see when people stopped buying pregnancy tests and started buying pre-natal vitamins and searching for cribs and baby clothes. Problem is there are far fewer signs when someone miscarries. So vulnerable women and couples in one of the worst times of their lives will continue being bombarded by adverts for baby stuff on every website they visit every time they’re online potentially for months after they’ve lost their baby. And you would think that at least one of the billions upon billions of dollars that the likes of Google and Facebook make could go on a sufficiently well staffed team of people who can be contacted manually switch the algorithm off for people who are being actively harmed by it, but I don’t think that’s in the best interests of big business.

.

You sure about that? I really doubt it.

Another knock on effect from the mainstream right’s embrace of Trumpism. You can’t report honestly on Trump without the coverage sounding like a hatchet job, so when the majority of right wingers choose to throw away their principles and support him anyway they’re not going to want to work for an organisation that makes them feel bad about that. Now, given how much your guy moans about lack of Hunter coverage (whose misdeeds he conflates with Joe, which is a pretty big red flag) I’d be interested to know how much time NPR spent covering Jared’s far more successful influence peddling from inside the White House vs Hunter’s solo efforts. Would anyone here really be surprised if the bias was actually in the other direction?

Yes, the whole ‘let’s just do what dictators do’ suggestion is rather amusing.

Hence it’s only your fellow righties who’d let her anywhere near the government.

Dude... Marjorie Taylor Greene isn't a lefty and she wasn't talking about global warming.

So your understanding of the science is that if GW was real there woud be no such thing as a nice day? You need to lay off the FOX.

Sure, but the vast majority of people you know is still a tiny number of people. From Rumsfeld who was in the White House at the time: At the White House, “angry calls, heavy and constant” began jamming the switchboards. Throughout the rest of Ford’s presidency, fomented by Nixon critics in the media, where they were thick in number, suspicion about the circumstances surrounding the pardon lingered. A whopping 71 percent polled by Time magazine believed then that Ford may not have told the country the whole truth about the circumstances of the pardon. https://www.politico.eu/article/how-richard-nixon-pardon-tore-gerald-ford-administration-apart-watergate/ And since you're so concerned with when things were written, this was published in September 1974: Throughout the most painful week of Gerald Ford's fledgling presidency, public protest continued to batter the White House. Far from easing after the first shock of Ford's precipitate pardon of Richard Nixon for any and all federal crimes committed during his presidency, the controversy grew... Thus, barely a month into his presidency, Gerald Ford found himself jeered by a crowd of pardon protesters outside a hotel in Pittsburgh, where he addressed a conference on urban transportation. They waved signs bearing such taunts as THE COUNTRY WON'T STAND FOR IT—a mockery of Ford's declaration about a pardon for Nixon, which Ford made during the Senate hearings to confirm him as Vice President. In an otherwise pleasant outing to help dedicate a World Golf Hall of Fame in Pinehurst, N.C., Ford faced more banners: IS NIXON ABOVE THE LAW? and JAIL CROOKS, NOT RESISTERS... From a rating of 71% approval three weeks before the pardon, he had skidded so that only 49% rated him as doing either a "fair" or "good" job. Unlike Nixon's White House aides, Ford's staff reported the extent of adverse telegrams and mail. More than 30,000 comments were received, and they ran about 6 to 1 against Ford's decision.... A surprising number of local judges cited the Nixon pardon as prompting them to treat offenders leniently. Los Angeles Municipal Judge Gilbert Alston ordered the release of a Viet Nam veteran who had held three hostages at riflepoint in Griffith Park during an alleged "combat flashback." Explained the judge: "If a man who almost wrecked the country can be pardoned, this defendant can be released to get proper treatment." The release was countermanded by a higher judge. County Judge Kirk Smith pardoned two traffic law violators in Grand Forks, N.D., as "an act of clemency" in response to Ford's action. Federal Judge Marvin Frankel reduced a 30-day sentence for a New York tax evader to a $1,000 fine on grounds that potential charges against Nixon involved far greater underpayments of taxes. From his federal district court bench in Chicago, Judge Hubert Will deplored the notion "that political criminals can get away with more than other criminals." https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,908732-2,00.html Just imagine - Federal Court Judges letting criminals walk free in protest over a decision that people supposedly didn't care about?

That’s the worst thing you can think of on the Left? While most of the mainstream Republican Party is trying to dismantle Democracy and put in power a President who believes that no laws or Constitutional limits apply to him? While the right is trying to deny real women access to lifesaving medical care? You think anyone reading is going to think ‘oh yeah, trans rights. Ain’t nothing else as crazy as that going on right now!’

Well, if the message hasn’t worked yet… Look, if you can pull your head out of whatever fringe right wing anti-Biden rabbit hole it’s got stuck in you’d see that voting Dem will actually help the Republican Party in the long run. If you want any chance of a sensible right leaning government in the near to medium term future then you should want to contribute to a complete repudiation of Trumpism and MAGA. Vote for Biden, because there’s really nothing wrong with him and it’ll increase the humiliating losing margin for Trump. Persuade your friends to do the same. Vote for the Dem against any MAGA candidate on the ticket. Vote against anyone who says the 2020 election is as stolen AND any of the spineless dickheads who say there were ‘irregularities’. Write to the RNC and you state Republican organisations to tell them why you’re voting against their anti-democracy candidates. Maybe then you’ll have a chance at one day being able to vote for a candidate who isn’t a Dem but also doesn’t retweet everything that spews out of Marjorie Taylor Green.

Kari Lake has jumped onto the bandwagon of outrage by demanding the Dem Governor do something immediately to bring back common sense. She said that a woman and a mother she understood this issue better than any of her opponents for Senate. Which is odd, because two years ago when Lake was running for governor she said she was “thrilled” to think that the “great law” which was already on the books could be reinstated by the court and act as an example for other states to follow! It’s almost funny how every dirty trick the Senate Republicans pulled to get their ultra-right wing court was justified as serving ‘the will of the people’, when the end result has been something the huge majority of people in every state really fucking hate.

The new President, however, re-opened old wounds when, exactly one month into his tenure, he granted Richard Nixon a "full, free, and absolute pardon . . . for all offenses" Nixon committed, or "may have committed," while President.… Instead Ford's pardon of Nixon touched off a firestorm of protest. Polls showed that most Americans wanted Nixon punished. Observers also questioned Ford's judgment in pardoning Nixon so soon after taking office, with one Republican senator asking a presidential aide, "doesn't he have any sense of timing?" Indeed, his first press secretary, Jerald terHorst, resigned in protest over Ford's decision. Ford's popularity plummeted in public opinion polls, dropping from the high sixties into the high thirties. Just as important, members of Congress from both parties reacted angrily to the pardon. A group of liberal Democrats, in particular, wanted to learn more about the pardon—and especially whether Ford had discussed Nixon's pardon with the ex-President or his staff. The specter of a deal between Nixon and Ford hung in the background as a special subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee ("The Hungate Committee") sent Ford a set of questions about the pardon. Attempting to answer his critics, Ford agreed to appear before the committee, a decision his White House aides did not support. Ford thus became the first President since Abraham Lincoln to testify before a congressional committee of inquiry. That doesn’t sound to me like the reaction of a nation which accepts a decision. As a general rule it’s a good idea to read a link which you hope supports your point of view before posting it. Exactly, yet another huge problem with Ford’s decision. It kicked a can down the road and left open a bunch of legal questions contributing to the quagmire today. Heck, Trump might already be in prison if not for Ford’s pardon.

Then why did you provide it as evidence? Come on dude, you can’t have it both ways. The author of your link either knows what he’s talking about or he doesn’t. If he does, you should consider what he actually says. If he doesn’t, why are you trying to pull the wool over our eyes?