ndawg

The answer is in this sentence you quoted from 2008: "What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history" The McCain/Palin ticket reminded him of the civil rights movement. Reminded him. He drew a comparison. He did not equate them.

There's validity to what you're saying, but McCain resolutely stood up to an authoritarian takeover of the GOP. That's a pretty substantial last-minute addition to his lifetime wins column. I won't gush over him, but I can't help but to appreciate that, in the end, he stood on the right side of history at a very important juncture.

This is what I want to know from the "don't politicize this tragedy" crowd. What other thing besides politics is supposed to magically swoop in and cure our epidemic of gun violence? At this point, if it's not politics that's going to fix this, then what is? "Don't politicize this tragedy" is a politician's jedi mind trick forcing you into not getting mad at him for having abdicated his duties as an elected official.

This is the kind of preacher that makes nonbelievers wish God were real for just a few moments, only so God could punish his blasphemy. I'm not a violent person, but I can't help but to admit that I'd grin mightily if a lightning bolt struck him on the head.

I'm pretty sure this is the crux of the matter. It's normal for 24 hour news channels to put a newsroom backdrop behind a political pundit saying all the kinds of things that we'd expect a political pundit to say -- selecting facts that fit a particular narrative, arrogant dismissal of opposing view points, damage control, etc. When you add in the ticker at the bottom and all the other visual cues that identify news reporting, many people lose the ability to recognize whether they're watching actual reporting or just op-ed. Eventually people just move in to that castle-in-the-sky, and stop watching reporters like Smith altogether, and tune in to the likes of Hannity instead. I've seen it with the left, too, where people watch John Oliver and Bill Maher all the time but don't really get news directly from any news source. We only have one way out of this tailspin. We have to get several hundred million Americans with free will and shit for brains to once again see the same world (albeit with different perspectives). Outlook not so good, IMO.

I'm genuinely curious about what leads people to this conclusion. I have never relied on television news for information, so I'm out of the loop. What do you see when you watch TV news that reveals the biases? Are you sure someone like a Cronkite today would be perceived as impartial? It's very easy to apply a blanket statement to the entirety of the mainstream media. Hell, isn't it just as likely that a strong bias on the part of the viewer makes them perceive bias in the reporting, whenever the reporting conflicts with the viewers biases? Also, with so much media being reported every day, it doesn't seem to hard to find "evidence" to support bias. It would take a monumental effort to comprehensively assess media outlets for their bias. And even then, such bias would be relative to the American audience, right? "Liberal" for an American audience might well be middle of the road or even conservative for another audience. If we must have faith in journalism, and we've lost that faith, why don't we ever talk about what would restore that faith? I'm, uh, just asking questions...

Kellyane Conway is a serpent, lulz. Every moment of airtime where she gets to speak she is spewing venomous lies... it's uncanny.

No judgment, just speculation.

I'd go a step further. This actually gives Trump the potential to pin all the crimes on Sessions. Set aside the fact that Sessions has worked to maintain the investigation for a moment -- Trump can easily argue that Sessions all but admitted he was guilty when he recused himself from the investigation. Why couldn't this work?

How did you type this out with a straight face? I mean, at some point when you were typing that, it must have dawned on you how stupid it was to equate telling a message board poster not to vote with state and local governments deliberately systemically reducing representation of entire segments of the voting population. So, what happened? Did you realize how stupid what you were saying was, but felt too invested in the sentence already, and decided to see it through to the end? Because there's no way a functioning human brain actually arrived at the notion that telling someone not to vote is equivalent to voter suppression.

So true, +rep. If it takes throwing kids in cages, obstructing justice, etc., then so be it. I mean, even if it takes ripping up the original Constitution and literally wiping Putin's ass with it, at least we'll have that 5-4 advantage.

It pains me to say this, but if it feels like I'm insisting on going backwards to you, it's because you aren't comprehending me. If we spent $1 trillion on the war on drugs, and saved just, say, 10 lives from fentanyl overdoses, was our drug policy effective or wasteful? But I get why you feel this way. It sounds like drugs have affected you or people close to you, as they've affected too many of us. It really is shitty, and I'll say that we have that in common. However, you are choosing to allow your personal emotions to override analysis that would demonstrate that your position, well-intentioned as it may be, is utterly impractical in the real world. This really isn't a whole lot different that commies concluding that we can just end poverty by letting the state control wealth. So, you've shown us you've got a bleeding heart, just like us libs, so now own it!

If I attempt to deadlift a two ton truck, 100% of the energy I've expended is waste. Zero actual work was accomplished. Our war on drugs has been huge and expensive. How much has it actually moved the needle? Is drug use less of a problem in the US than other countries that don't spend enormous gobs of money on a war on drugs? Your response seems to indicate that you're under one of two impressions: 1. our war on drugs is actually effective, or 2. wasted effort applied towards a noble goal is justified because the cause itself is just. The first would be ignorant, the second would be the GOP's primary criticism of the left.

Republicans are totally cool with massive government waste as long as they personally don't believe there is any waste.

In the worst case scenario, today still brings the "should I expatriate or not" question closer. The sooner we figure out whether it's time to bail, the better, right?

Today we get to celebrate a modest portion of the swamp actually getting drained. I sure wish @TahoeHorn were here to celebrate with us.

What is presently the greatest international troll job of all time, out of curiosity?

I think you might be assuming everyone else is just as much of a tribalist as you are. I get no joy from seeing the Republican Party destroyed. This is horrendously bad for America. The Republican Party, by the way, is already destroyed. It's been utterly overrun by interlopers. You're not even supporting the same party. But you are supporting the same tribal identity. So, there's that, I guess.

The damage he has done to the Republican Party is permanent.

Trump runs Team R. You are trying to sound as if you would be willing to put Team R ahead of Trump, but in reality, you're just admitting that you'll willingly follow wherever he leads you.

At this point any conservative pretending their point of view stems from some set of principles that should be evenly and fairly applied should just be laughed out of the room. Rational discourse? Nope, not only do you not deserve it, you were never really capable of it to begin with.

"Pontification on moral theology" <-- is there a better example of idiot trying to sound smart? I can't think of one.

Careful there, cowboy, selective enforcement of drug laws helps disenfranchise minorities that would completely vote against you on most issues.

Starting a new thread titled "Killing the Decline of Badass AF Politicians That We Want To Be Speaker Threads" would be the next logical step.

What is happening with all this reasonable and insightful discussion. Where is the constant strife and barrage of bad takes?