Coreece

Thank you for proving my point, that at the state and municipal level the US is close to a third world country, with many supporting these mentalities. The only thing that it proved was that you lack a sense of humor.

I agree. Each boob should be judged on it's own merit. A boob lacking elasticity and melanin among other features should be reduced to a civil infraction, while more aesthetically pleasing boobs should be celebrated as a civil service.

You have it all backwards. You are the one that replied with a bunch of irrelevant opinions and particulars about the lawsuit that were irrelevant to my initial post. I am not the one that brought up the lawsuit, and now you keep going on with some type of half-assed gish gallop about the lawyer and the parents and the school and the other students and the pleadings and the damages done to the kid. What, do you want me to interview the kid and report back on how being unjustifiably smeared by liberal media across the entire country has negatively affected his life? Again, you don't get it. You desperately keep grasping onto that false narrative that has already been walked back by even the most biased media outlets. The kid didn't chose the encounter. They were waiting for their school bus to go home when the black hate group started hurling insults and racial slurs. When the Black hate group accused the kids of "giving faggots rights," they responded in disgust and reminded the hate group that homosexuals are humans too. The elderly Native American man misunderstood the situation and thought the kids were harassing a small group of normal African American protesters, so he decided to butt in and get in Nick Sandmann's face for no particular reason. Then from another angle, you can see another Native American getting in the face of Nick's friend and hurling more insults. The kid started to get agitated, but Nick actually puts his hand out and basically motions for his friend to back down so the situation doesn't get out of control. OH NO! Cancel all high school trips to Washington D.C immediately, or at least don't visit the Lincoln Memorial because there might be angry black men there! The kids aren't the problem. As I illustrated above, they handled themselves just fine. It is the adults and the media that look foolish and immature. Kid's should be able to visit their nation's capital and even participate in political protest if they choose. They should be able to engage in non-violent confrontations with adults that have different world views without the media twisting the facts and dragging some kid through the mud just to make some sensationalized, bogus and bigoted political statement while collecting a ton of click-bait revenue at his expense. . .

I don't know, maybe Wapo was the first to report the false story and responsible for it going viral. I don't really care, nor do I feel sorry for them. This is all beside the point. If you look at my original post on the issue, it wasn't really about the lawsuit, it was about those on the left that are so desperate to get Trump out of office that they're willing to sacrifice their credibility to do so. A genuine news organization has a responsibility to perform it's due diligence before publishing bogus stories. Dude, what's your point? Also, your continued misuse of periods. Is starting to get annoying.

If you actually watched the videos, you'd see that that wasn't the case. Why do you continue to buy into the false narrative that your liberal media already retracted?

That's outrageous. Land of the free to do what The Man tells you. Looks like the judge released her on a PR bond. Apparently "he didn't understand the charge stemmed from a political protest when he ordered Sutherland jailed." So what then, it's ok to deny bail for showing a boob in public as long as it's not political? I wonder if it's common practice to deny bail for misdemeanor cases when the defendant lives out of state? https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Judge-Reverses-Bail-Denial-for-ERA-Activist-Who-Exposed-Breast-in-Imitation-of-Virginia-Flag-506165551.html

Seems about right. Has nothing to do with any real damage done and everything to do with making a political statement. Ya right, you have people like Bill Maher calling the kid a "smirk face little prick" and Trevor Noah saying how "you just want to punch the kid in the face." Meanwhile, the kid is falsely and negatively portrayed in newspapers and plastered all over the internet as they rake in ad revenue at his expense. The kid deserves some compensation for such extreme internet bullying from some of the deepest pockets in the business.

The lawyers will state their cases and it'll be up to the court to determine the extent to which Wapo is responsible, if at all. But none of that negates the fact that multiple liberal media outlets have already admitted last month that they jumped the gun without examining the facts before dragging this kids name through the mud. Even Trevor Noah said that news reporters could've easily done an internet search to get the facts before reporting the story. I can't believe I'm about to quote Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, but I think their exchange on The View sums this whole thing up perfectly: Whoopi: “Is it that, we just instantly say ‘that’s what it is,’ based on what we see in that moment and then have to walk stuff back when it turns out we’re wrong. “Why is that? Why do we keep making the same mistake?” Joy Behar: “Because we’re desperate to get Trump out of office." Whoopi: "But what does that have to do with. . ." (interrupted) Joy Behar: "I think that that’s the reason. I think the press jumps the gun a lot because ... we have so much circumstantial evidence against this guy that we’re basically hoping that, you know, Cohen’s got the goods, “It’s wishful thinking." Whoopi: "Right, but let's talk about the kids in this particular confrontation since that's the question. . ." Aside from the whole $250 Million, what BS are you talking about specifically? What did this kid do that was so wrong and offensive? Why are you one still buying into a false narrative that has already been retracted by liberal media? Right, and if it was a small group of white nationalists yelling homophobic racial slurs at 16 year-old black students with hoodies, their lawyers would be saying the same thing. Would you have a problem with that as well? And that black hate group was yelling racial slurs to everyone. That wasn't some BS that his lawyer made up. They were calling the Native Americans "Savages, Uncle Tomahawks with their heads up the white man's ass," and that they "worship eagles, buffaloes and Rams, and all kinds of animals, which is why God took their land away."

Right. 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. Here's a decent video using a variety of footage from that day to provide context and explain what actually happened in the Covington situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A3h6ZTeH0c

That whole "20-year high" thing with 1020 hate groups is a bit dramatic given that we had similar numbers 6-8 year ago with 1018 groups in 2011. It's interesting how the headline singles out white supremacy given that 64% of that increase from four years ago was due to a rise in black nationalist groups. There were 113 black nationalist groups in 2014, and 264 in 2018 - an increase of 151 black nationalist groups out of total increase of 236 extremist groups over that four year period. You can sort the numbers by ideology here: https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map While that's true, that number is offset by the decrease in 50+ other white supremacy groups like the KKK, Skinheads, Neo confederates, etc. You also have to consider that many of these guys may be just moving from one group to another. It would probably be best compare the total number of extremist within these groups to accurately gauge various levels of extremism in this country, being careful to take into account extremists that belong to multiple groups. The one thing that actually does make 2018 different from previous years is the rise of a group called "The Proud Boys." The article doesn't talk about them and the SPLC lists them as a general hate group rather than a white supremacist group. This is most likely due to the fact that they are marketed as a "free speech" group, however, many of the leaders and organizers have ties to white nationalism. I'm guessing these guys are marketing it this way to attract people that aren't comfortable with being directly associated with overt racism.

Love it! A right winger says something foolish/embarrassing/divisive. Cue the "what Trump/Coulter/McConnell REALLY meant was . . . . " apologists. It never occurred to me how my post may be considered apologetic, especially the bit about Trumps charming puffery. The point was that people shouldn't get their hopes up. Just because she thinks Trump is an idiot, doesn't mean that her political views suddenly shifted slightly to the left. If anything, she shifted further right into no man's land.

Juan is a Democrat that has worked for NPR and The Washington Post. I believe he still writes for For NYT and Wapo as well. I haven't watched FOX News in about a year, but in the past I've typically watched it while visiting friends and the in-laws for extended stays. While the FOX News reputation has been based primarily on Hannity, Tucker, Ingram and Fox and Friends, they only represent 4 shows out of 14 daily programs. The other shows typically offer more balanced programing with a mix of views including people like Juan Williams to offer a left leaning perspective. You don't really hear much about people like Shepard Smith, Dana Perino, Bret Baier, Cavuto, Brit Hume and many others that offer a balanced and reasonable point of view. Many have already called Trump out on a variety of issues.

America has more or less been divided for a long time now over a variety of issues. It's seems the biggest division recently is within his own base: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/265064-the-wall/?do=findComment&comment=4855740 Ann Coulter: The goal is to get Trump's stupidest voters to say "HE'S FIGHTING!" No he's not. If he signs this bill, it's over. No, the goal of a national emergency is for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for 2 more years.

Ann Coulter joins the ranks: "The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot" Just to be clear, she only thinks that because she knows that this national emergency won't bring the wall that she wants. She already said she'd jump back onboard if he gets a real plan going for the wall. She also thinks his puffery is charming. That's what she likes about him.

I'm sure MS-13 would be willing to paint both sides of the wall for free so at least that part is covered.

Paltering is using truth or facts to deceive people. As I've already mentioned in my reply to Jakee, one way that wapo attempted to do this was by saying the DOJ only prosecuted 230 cases and that that was an 18% decline from the year before. But they left out the part about how there were still more people charged in connection to those prosecutions. They actually saw a 75% increase in the number of people charged and 106% increase in the number of convictions. So that 18% number is meaningless and doesn't accurately represent the truth behind the numbers. And they deliberately went out of their way to get that number because the DOJ page where they sourced that info didn't say anything about an 18% decline, but it specifically stated the 75% increase in those charged and the 106% increase in those convicted. And I'm sorry for having to repeat myself but they also ignored all the FBI cases and the 1200+ arrests and all the other 1000+ investigations that were going on, and the 7000+ reports on trafficking. And those are just the ones we know about. There's more on that in my reply here. They're not downplaying it. Yes they are, and I already described how they are doing that. Yes, they are doing that as well. But let's face, with Trump it's probably more of a case of Hanlon's Razor. Yes. 1) We don't have an open border. Fine, I meant "unofficial border points," but I think you already knew that. Yes, I've already addressed that. Please stop talking past me. Additional security might funnel more traffickers to those official border crossings where we would have more control over the issue and will now have more resources to identify trafficking in part by the executive order that I mentioned earlier. Right so about 80% are coming in through official border points as I've already referenced. So what about the ones coming in through unofficial border points like "wide-open areas between ports of entry?" It's seems like you're completely ignoring that issue. The IOM also stated that “Sexual exploitation makes up 15 percent of official border crossings and 22 percent of nonofficial border crossings." The problem is that it's hard to gauge what that number actually is for a variety of reasons. There is confusion about smuggling vs trafficking and the number of women that are then trafficked after being smuggled in. Due to the covert nature of the business, victims are hidden and hard to identify. Even when they're found, many aren't identified as victims. Most women are are extremely fearful of not only their traffickers but also the authorities and many cases go unreported. Many researches and government agencies have tried using estimation models but those numbers are still considered unreliable and tend to be quite high. The 10,000-20,000 numbers we hear are probably overkill and somewhat based on numbers in other countries. But given the cartel's motivation and the sheer number of migrants involved in the border crises, I don't think several thousand is a stretch. But again, hopefully that executive order will help with the coordination of info between agencies and other countries so we can get more reliable numbers and effective solutions. I think a 50-70 ft conctrete wall is a bit of overkill as well, but if additional security and a few more barriers in problematic areas will help in some of the ways I've mentioned above, then I don't think democrats will have a problem. And it looks like that is what's going to happen.

That's fine, but is the part about smuggling/trafficking thousands of women over an open border into the sex/labor trade really a lie? Much of the Wapo article was based only on those that were identified as victims and traffickers that got caught. The IOM stats said that while "79% of international trafficking journeys go through official border points," cases of sexual exploitation were more likely to travel through unofficial routes: “Sexual exploitation makes up 15 percent of official border crossings and 22 percent of nonofficial border crossings." So there's clearly a problem with both choices of entry and they should be handled properly. I think the fact that the majority are coming through official border points gives us a bit more control in the matter, so any security measures that funnel traffickers to official border points would be ideal. Executive Order 13773 signed a couple years ago was designed to offer more resources to identify these traffickers, especially at official border crossings. It's also important to distinguish between smuggling and trafficking and to identity victims as victims so they get additional protections under the law. Another important aspect of of this is to "maximize the extent to which all Federal agencies share information and develop strategies, under the guidance of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to maximize coordination among agencies." This coordination of information was also extended to foreign governments as well. I think the idea here is to get more reliable information to identify problematic areas and obtain more accurate figures on victims.

Mere paltering. Hard to implement a solution if people like El Wapo continually downplay the severity of the Mexican sex trade into the U.S. I suppose that's what executive orders are for.

I think Trump's field of view on this issue is about as narrow as the Wapo article, and while I strongly disagree with his airplane comment, I'm not so quick to dismiss everything he said just because wapo wants to cherry-pick data for the sole purpose of giving him 4 Pinocchios. There are plenty of other ways to do that without minimizing this issue. And yes, saying that trafficking by airplane is nearly impossible also minimizes the issue and undermines the efforts of those actually dealing with it. I didn't necessarily have a problem with Wapo overall, but they have a history of downplaying sex trafficking in The U.S for whatever reason. In the article, they talked about the 230 prosecutions by the DOJ and then went out of their to say that that was wan 18% decline from the year before as if it wasn't as serious. They deliberately left out the part that there were still more people linked to those prosecutions that were charged and convicted. In fact, the DOJ link that they referenced specifically said it was a record year and that they saw a 75 % increase in defendants charged and a 106% increase in convictions. They also left out the part of that link talking about an additional 649 human trafficking cases and 2453 arrests initiated by the FBI. In addition to that, there were still at least a 1000+ investigations going on and 7000+ sex trafficking reports. The most reports came from Texas and California. Wapo said that you had to dig far to find many cases involving the southern border, but right there on the same DOJ page that they referenced, it showed the convictions of illegals from the Rendon-Reyes Sex Trafficking Organization just last month. It talked about how they trafficked numerous women across the border for about 10 years. Some were as young as 14. One woman was even abducted along with her baby. But wapo completely ignores that one and moves on to the Thai trafficking conviction because it had nothing to do with the border.

You do remember who the president was during most of the 90's don't you? Hint Billary! Yes of course. I even mentioned in in my last reply to Bill. Dude, I was raised in a Detroit city by blue collar democrats. Believe it or not, I'm more of a left leaning moderate. So please stop pretending you know me so well.

She's being positioned as a public voice for the upcoming election, it's as simple as that. She has the clout of her husband's administration without actually being Barack Obama which means she can say what Obama would say without all the right wing new outlets painting an opposition target on her back. To put it this way, if Obama gets on a stage in support of Candidate X the outlets lambaste the candidate for being an Obama clone, the sort of news that rings well. If Michelle gets up there it's not as click-bait worthy. Ya, that makes more sense. And just to be clear, in the part of my post that you quoted, I was talking about Joy Villa, the lady that wore the "build the wall" dress in skydekker's post, not Michelle Obama.

The grass was always greener when you were a kid. I remember that time as well; my sisters had just graduated from college and couldn't find jobs due to the recession. I doubt that lasted very long. By the time Clinton took office the recovery was well on it's it way. It seemed like a good time for younger people and the lower class to live comfortably and independent while still having a good opportunity to save and get ahead in life. It's been very difficult for those groups of people to do that in the last 15 years or so. Among other factors, the average rent has almost doubled while the federal minimum wage only increased from around $5+ to $7 and some change. Maybe the increased minimum wage in some states will change all that.

From Wiki: "The 1990s were remembered as a time of strong economic growth, steady job creation, low inflation, rising productivity, economic boom, and a surging stock market that resulted from a combination of rapid technological changes and sound central monetary policy. The 1990s economic boom in the United States was an extended period of economic prosperity, during which GDP increased continuously for almost ten years (the longest recorded expansion in the history of the United States)" I completely agree with that statement. That's almost exactly how I remembered it. The only reason unemployment wasn't lower was due to the discovery of internet porn. . .

Given that she wasn't nominated for anything or being honored, I simply see it as the only way she was going to get any attention whatsoever.

Ya, I know that her appearance was a surprise, so it wouldn't really have that much of an effect on ratings, which was evidenced by them hitting another new low among the target audience. That's 2 years in a row now. . . It just seemed a bit odd to me at first. What does M.Obama have to do with with the music industry other than that she listens to music? The only thing that really makes sense is that this is a time when people are starting to wonder who's going to make a presidential bid. Practically everyone in that crowd would rather see her as president than the guy in office now. So they put her up on the stage in a position of power and making references about ruling the world. They plant this idea into peoples heads to mull around and see what happens. . . Mobama 20/20 Theme song - "I Can See Clearly Now"