Coreece

True, however In many cases, people are confusing implicit bias with explicit racism. There's a big difference, and I think we should be careful with that especially since pretty much everyone is susceptible to implicit racial bias. Studies have indicated that even black police officers have shown bias against other blacks in their reaction times when perceiving a possible threat. You deal with implicit bias by first recognizing it and then talking about it openly in a civil environment to implement measures that mitigate it's effect, not by making defamatory snap judgements and shouting "racism" just to silence others and advance your political agenda.

I choose to get my news from a variety of sources, not just that which confirms my own bias. I've found misrepresentations and outright lies from a variety of news sources from both sides, some more than others of course. It just makes it harder to trust them, and I have to waste time fact checking everything for myself to ensure I have an accurate understanding rather than just blindly believing whatever the left/right wants you to believe, which is often written through the lens of two entirely different perspectives. If NK really wouldn't budge on their demands, then I would agree too and I did. What else was he really suppose to do? But when NK now says that they were willing to give in on some of those demands, you have to wonder if Trump left a bit too prematurely, rather than sticking it out and being the great negotiator that he claimed to be. Maybe there was a language barrier. Maybe NK is just lying after the fact to make Trump look bad, who knows. But if they're willing to agree to the deal now, then why not just do it?

His initial reason was that NK wanted all sanctions removed and wouldn't allow an inspection to see progress. Now NK responded that that's not true: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/28/north-korea-press-conference-sanctions-1196561 Wow, two useless shitfests within 24 hours. Nobody knows who or what to believe anymore, and I think it's all by design. That way people just say fuck it and believe whatever the hell they want, while those in charge just do whatever the hell they want without anyway accountability because we're all distracted trying to figure out what the hell is going on in the first place.

I'll agree that it seemed a bit awkward, and I wondered why she didn't speak for herself. The only thing that made sense to me was that she couldn't talk since she wasn't part of the committee, but could at least make a statement with her presence. And given the fact that even the scope of questioning by congress was limited, it's not unreasonable to make that assumption. I just don't know how accurate it is. I haven't found anything about the rules yet. I briefly skimmed over the rules in the "Committee Consideration" subsection found in the following link: https://www.govtrack.us/congressional-procedures I'm still under the impression that they would've had to call Patton as a witness in order for her to speak at the hearing. Perhaps it wasn't worth all the trouble? Also, I know the republican within the first minute of the hearing called for a motion to postpone because they didn't get Cohen's written testimony until late that night before the hearing, but the rules state that it should be given 24 hours in advance so they could properly prepare. The motion to postpone was voted down 22-18 along party lines if I remember correctly.

I'll agree that it seemed a bit awkward, and I wondered why she didn't speak for herself. The only thing that made sense to me was that she couldn't talk since she wasn't part of the committee, but could at least make a statement with her presence. And given the fact that even the scope of questioning by congress was limited, it's not unreasonable to make that assumption. I just don't know how accurate it is. I haven't found anything about the rules yet.

I think that's a lazy and inaccurate representation of what actually happened. Rep. Rashida Tlaib apologized for giving the wrong impression that she was calling Meadows a racist. Secondly, both Elijah Cummings and Lynne Patton stood up for Meadows. Thirdly, Meadows withdrew his request for the comment to be stricken. I think it was offensive to suggest that Lynne Patton was merely a prop as if she didn't have legitimate reasons of her own for standing up for Trump. Patton has said that she's been called an uncle tom and a house negro in the past and that much of her family has alienated her. She said that it was racist to take the word of a convicted liar over that of an accomplished African American woman working within the Trump Admin right alongside Cohen himself. Ya, that's not going to help his case. I don't think the comment was necessarily racist on the surface, but when given the context and the group he was playing up to, I think it's clear what he was implying. To be perfectly honest, I don't know what's worse, actually being racist or pretending to be. . .

Well, somebody has to pay for free 2-day shipping. . .

It's been going on for awhile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eicrqW8-ZI0 It's really not the same thing tho. The emergency funds in your video were to be used to help refugees/children directly. However Crenshaw is basically saying "what about the children?" Ok, what about the children? Do we just use the funds to build a wall and let the same problems pile up on the other side? Out of site, out of mind? How is that helping the children? Don't get me wrong. I understand the need for deterrence. It's like Obama said, those people need to know that their children will be sent back or may not even make it to the US. Maybe a wall would be a deterrent, but I'm not so sure. Is it really worth a multi-biliion dollar social experiment to find out it's effectiveness, or lack thereof? It's starting to seem that this wall is more symbolic than practical. Is this the type of symbolism we want attached to this country for decades and maybe even centuries to come?

Ya, I caught that bit. First time I watched that show in about a year. These guys have been working with Juan Wlliams for years. Watters and Gutfeld have typically been the funny guys and hardly ever taken too seriously. First time I've ever seen Gutfeld that agitated and pissed off.

I think you meant to say "what many are doing is saying that Cohen is a liar and therefor I don't give credence to the parts of his testimony that are NOT in my favour." And you're right. Both sides are doing this, or will do this at some point. I highly doubt that this would satisfy the dems wrt to the whole collusion thing, for example.

What was really refreshing for me, was that rather than hearing all of this from the liberal media and then having to check all their facts/sources, or the lack thereof, this time I got to just sit back, relax and watch all this shit coming straight out of the horse's ass. I usually don't get involved with political circle jerks in this forum, but this one's just too good to pass up. What I find really interesting, entertaining and frustrating all at the same time is that when Cohen said that Trump never told him to lie to congress, or that he doesn't know about any collusion, or that he never went to Prague, some on the right have basically said, "See, no collusion, it's settled, Trump ain't so bad!" But when it comes to all the other stuff it's "You're a Convicted Liar!" One thing that bothered me however was that Cohen seemed a little bit too partisan and really vindictive. He probably should've toned that down a bit.

Cohen: "I'm responsible for your (Congress's) silliness because I did the same thing that you're doing now for 10 years. I protected Mr. Trump for 10 years,"

I agree. They'll be looking into his statements thoroughly. Mueller's investigation could possibly help corroborate his testimony.

Wouldn't surprise me. With the amount of alleged sexual assaults taking place on these minors, a steady stream is required. I didn't take his comment to mean that they were being trafficked. But even if it did, then the wall wouldn't really be dealing with the actual emergency, but rather, avoiding it. So I don't see how he gets off with using the whole "what about the children" thing to support his case.

Dan Crenshaw Fox and Friends, lol: "This vote was effectively about whether or not this is an emergency. That essentially was the question being asked during the vote. Ok, I was just down at the border the last couple weeks. Uh, it's definitely an emergency. When I was there, there was at least a thousand apprehensions in ONE DAY! A lot of these are children being dragged across the border. That absolutely constitutes a crisis and an emergency." I'm going to start watching that show more often, it's hilarious.

I had a good feeling I'd be entertained by it, so I turned on FOX and Friends just to see how they were dealing with it. Within the first 30 minutes or so: Kellyanne Conway: "The opposition party is flailing and failing because they can't beat this president on the issues. He (Cohen) is not going to be able to take down the president with him. . .but respectfully, it's beside the point. How is this relevant? How is this relevant to what the president is trying to do in North Korea?" Fox and Friends Cast: Cast Memeber 1: It's amazing that another network has a countdown not to the KJU dinner and negotiations with world peace at stake, but to Michael Cohen's testimony." (shaking head) Cast Member 2: Do people care about his suspicions? This is a convicted liar. Do they care about his suspicions or proof? Cast Member 3: Excellent questions, so stay tuned for that, you'll see it live at 10am EST!

When you paste a link, there will be a black dialog box at the bottom notifying you that the link has been embedded. Just click the part that says "display as link instead."

No biggie, it just made it harder to read. I thought it might've been a talk-to-text bug or a language thing.

I'll admit that my attempt at satire was untimely and executed rather poorly. My apologies for being selfishly entertained. That's fine. You guys are both unwavering in your political partisanship and forever bound to your list of talking points. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that on the surface. Having a stable base of opposing political affiliations is essential for a democracy and it's continued success, especially when we're at our weakest. However, one important thing that we can all rally around is criminal justice reform, so it's probably not in our best interest to go out of our way to pick fights when dealing with one of the most bipartisan issues facing the country today.

Dude seriously, wtf is up with all those periods in the middle of your sentences? I've brought this up before but to no avail. I've never seen anything quite like it. I don't even know if there's a name for it. It's like a run-on sentence, but the opposite.

Well ya, now she does. But before this case received all the negative press, she was to remain locked up for over a month before her trial, which would've far exceeded any penalty that she would've likely received - so there really was no presumption of innocence, at least a meaningful one anyway. Do you really trust the police? Maybe they just hate the patriots. And it wasn't a brothel, it was a day spa. It's perfectly normal for billionaires to hang out at strip mall massage parlors!

I never said they sacrificed their credibility by believing it, you did. That's your strawman. What I actually said: "It seems like many on the left are so "desperate to get Trump out of office" that they're willing to sacrifice their own credibility to do so. I don't get it. Trump basically provides a daily smorgasbord of sensationalized bullshit to choose from, but they still feel the need to twist the facts and make shit up." Fell for what? That they actually filed a lawsuit? That practically every liberal media outlet has admitted that they jumped the gun. That they got it wrong and dragged this kids name through the mud for no good reason? The liberal media smeared themselves by not doing their due diligence and publishing this bogus story. The question was why wasn't Bill Maher or Trevor Noah sued? I said I don't know. Maybe you have nothing better to do then research why Bill Maher wasn't listed as a defendant, maybe you really care, but I don't. Correct, my post wasn't about the lawsuit and Phil kept demanding that I basically provide the plaintiffs entire case, complete with a list a damages endured by Nick Sandmann, lol. Nice try tho. . .

Wow, that is just about the worst excuse for being wrong, isn't it? Just keep digging that hole deeper, judge! Right. One thing I forgot to add is that this judge is denying bail and he doesn't even understand the details of the case?

First time misdemeanors are usually punishable by up to 90 days in the county jail, but it's extremely rare to actually get the full 90. I don't know if it's ever even happened before. From my experience most people usually plea out and just pay the fines, do community service and/or go on probation. If there's any jail time, it's most likely 5-10 days. Maybe more depending on the offense and if it was violent or not. However, I was always under the impression that if you go to trial and lose instead of taking a plea, then the penalty would be a bit stiffer, perhaps even the maximum. Well, he's rich and denied the claim. We don't know what happened, so he gets to be innocent until proven guilty. This woman had a full boob, nipple and all just hanging out in the public square. Everybody saw it, so clearly she's guilty as sin!

The humour page is in Bonfire! This page is for heavy meaningful discussion and mud slinging. My bad. Nonsense, didn't you ever see those women in the national geographic magazines when you were a kid?