The Biden Cabinet

[LurkingHorn 1050]

Wasn't sure where to put this, but I think I'd be a big fan of this move:

 

 

[kevwun 15653]

Oh, that would be grand.  He would be rather motivated to clean up Barr's mess and right a few wrongs along the way.

[Js1 85114]

Wouldn't be opposed to it.

I like Doug Jones, Sally Yates or Merrick Garland in the AG position. 

Plus Garland's prosecution of McVeigh could come in handy considering the right in domestic right wing terrorism.  Hell, give Doug Jones the Civil Rights Division head. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

As usual, the Greenwald attacks are entirely without substance and 100% revolving around social media obsessions. Pathetic.

Also... the Biden administration is going to be openly hostile to anything progressive.

 

[kevwun 15653]

Using his own words isn't substantial?  We're just telling you what he believes.  He thinks Hunter Biden's laptop is a legitimate news story.  Explain how someone can believe that without having brainworms.

Edited November 20, 2020 by kevwun

[G650 14108]

Of course b_t is white knighting Glenn Greenwald's loopy ass.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, kevwun said:

Using his own words isn't substantial?  We're just telling you what he believes.  He thinks Hunter Biden's laptop is a legitimate news story.  Defend that.

Misleading.

------------------------

All of these new materials, the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son's business associates. But in the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union of the nation's most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them.

The initial documents, claimed the New York Post, were obtained when the laptops containing them were left at a Delaware repair shop with water damage and never picked up, allowing the owner to access its contents and then turn them over to both the FBI and a lawyer for Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani. The repair store owner confirmed this narrative in interviews with news outlets and then (under penalty of prosecution) to a Senate Committee; he also provided the receipt purportedly signed by Hunter. Neither Hunter nor the Biden campaign has denied these claims.

------------------------

The Biden campaign hasn't been held to any scrutiny at all, and you can say that's justified, but even if you think Joe and his family are clean no matter what, not everyone operates on blind faith. Some people actually want to know things.

You, and the rest of the liberals, will dismiss any lack of pure faith in Joe as signs of loving Donald Trump, but you and I both know how stupid and childish that is.

The answers might be obvious, but the questions should still be asked.

It's a long article, and we're not really operating on a desire to understand anything not provided in a sentence, but the idea that Greenwald is just MAGA is completely idiotic.

The same media outlets that dismissed all of this as nonsense breathlessly reported just-as-idiotic accusations against Trump.

-----------------------

That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the opposite of how journalism has been practiced. In the days before the 2016 election, for instance, the New York Times received by mail one year of Donald Trump's tax returns and -- despite having no idea who sent it to them or how that person obtained it: was is stolen or hacked by a foreign power? -- the Times reported on its contents.

When asked by NPR why they would report on documents when they do not know the source let alone the source's motives in providing them, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Barstow compellingly explained what had always been the core principle of journalism: namely, a journalist only cares about two questions -- (1) are documents authentic and (2) are they in the public interest? -- but does not care about what motives a source has in providing the documents or how they were obtained when deciding whether to reporting them:

-----------------------

He's absolutely, completely correct.

[Js1 85114]

You guys, I don't think b_t likes Joe Biden or his policies at all. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, G650 said:

Of course b_t is white knighting Glenn Greenwald's loopy ass.

He's correct.

The media establishment has a massive pro-Biden bias. There is a monoculture of centrist liberalism in the media establishment. This monoculture is socially and professionally enforced.

Do you dispute any of those three things?

Blue TexAgs

[Huckleberry 32704]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

He's absolutely, completely correct.

There was zero question regarding the documents' authenticity? Multiple outlets from NBC to the WSJ requested access to the documents to verify authenticity but were denied. You're being dishonest here. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Merrick Garland as AG should have been the ending to Game of Thrones instead of the bullshit we got

[bad_teammate 13132]

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

There was zero question regarding the documents' authenticity?

That's not what he said.
"the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign"

Greenwald's point is not that everything there is true and real. Greenwald's 100% valid and real point is that the same media establishment that breathlessly publishes anything on Trump, regardless of provenance or even common sense, doesn't even ask him.

If we want a corporate media to be circumspect, OK, then be circumspect. Don't trumpet the Steele Dossier then clam up when Joe is under the spotlight. Choose.

Edited November 20, 2020 by bad_teammate

[SydneyCarton 47885]

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

He's correct.

The media establishment has a massive pro-Biden bias. There is a monoculture of centrist liberalism in the media establishment. This monoculture is socially and professionally enforced.

Do you dispute any of those three things?

Blue TexAgs

You're losing your fucking mind over this topic of Greenwald. But I'll quote this and ask you to prove it. Considering Fox news has been the biggest news ratings station for, what, a decade now, and newsmax and OAN are exploding, and the Sinclair Group buying up and operating local news stations, please quantify for me exactly how the "Media Establishment" has a "pro biden" bias. Perhaps that just have a left slant and a generally PRO TRUTH bias. But that being said, document the bolded part with something provable. So yeah, Imma go ahead and dispute one of those things. Because that's before we even take into account the proliferation of right wing lunatic websites all over the internet and social media. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

But I'll quote this and ask you to prove it.

- The squashing and silencing of the stor(ies) regarding the allegations and documents stemming from the documents first referenced in the Hunter laptop affair. (Simultaneously promoting anything they can find about Trump even if less dubious than even the largely-dubious Ukraine allegations.)
- The squashing and silencing of Tara Reid's allegations. (Simultaneously painting historic and noble portraits of all of Trump's accusers and also of Blasey Ford, almost none of whom have 1/2 the corroborating evidence of Reid).

That's just two, and it's even leaving aside the absolute common sense reality of how urban professionals view politics.

It's pretty bizarre that you'd accept #2 and #3 but then refuse to believe that would extend to create #1.

Quote

Considering Fox news has been the biggest news ratings station for, what, a decade now, and newsmax and OAN are exploding, and the Sinclair Group buying up and operating local news stations, please quantify for me exactly how the "Media Establishment" has a "pro biden" bias.

FOXNews is one. OAN and Newsmax are tiny.

AP, NPR, ABC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC and on and on and on. I'm not even saying they are wrong for having a pro-Biden bias. I'm not saying it's even a bad thing. I'm just saying that it IS a thing, and it clearly is.

Quote

Perhaps that just have a left slant and a generally PRO TRUTH bias.

1) they are not pro-left, that's crazy
2) they are more pro-truth than the pro-Trump wing of the media, but they aren't really pro-truth

Quote

Because that's before we even take into account the proliferation of right wing lunatic websites all over the internet and social media. 

If your argument is that we need a pro-Democrat media establishment to fight against the right-wing media establishment... aren't you just proving my point?

Why not just say, "Yes, most of the cultural institutions of media are liberal because liberalism is more aligned with the truth. They have a pro-liberal bias, but that's good because they are fighting against the liars in right-wing media."?

[washparkhorn 9935]

As the coalition to unseat Trump builds a Cabinet - it is worthwhile to keep up the real power centers in the U.S., i.e., the ones most responsible for its worst acts and greatest dangers.

Given the Senate races in Georgia and the ongoing troubles over Trump taking a loss, the coalition still has some work to do together.

Greenwald is antiwar. There are antiwar voters in both parties. Along with press freedom, Greenwald has focused on why war is failure for a civilization. I respect that viewpoint coming from a military family. War should always be a last resort. That may vary for some and I respect the more hawkish opinions that preemptive war may be necessary on occasion.

Greenwald points out Biden is being surrounded by individuals and groups who see use of American force as just part of doing business. My hope is we - as a coalition - move from a hawkish proclivity for starting shit where Americans and other humans die. 

I appreciate the comments explaining why Greenwald is personally disliked. I get that. Greenwald stirs the intraparty war fervor (which I oppose) - and we should be focused should be on selecting an administration in line with all of the coalition members who brought Biden to office. 

Until Georgia is over and Trump is gone, we still have work to do as a coalition of diverse interests. 

 

[Huckleberry 32704]

42 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's not what he said.
"the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign"

You should read to the end of the things you post. 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the opposite of how journalism has been practiced.

They didn't know them to be authentic. He started by simply saying Biden's camp never refuted them but by the end that had morphed into knowing they were authentic. While it seems to have worked on you, that kind of sneaky move doesn't work on everyone. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

They didn't know them to be authentic. He started by simply saying Biden's camp never refuted them but by the end that had morphed into knowing they were authentic. While it seems to have worked on you, that kind of sneaky move doesn't work on everyone. 

When did he say he knew they were authentic?

[SydneyCarton 47885]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

- The squashing and silencing of the stor(ies) regarding the allegations and documents stemming from the documents first referenced in the Hunter laptop affair. (Simultaneously promoting anything they can find about Trump even if less dubious than even the largely-dubious Ukraine allegations.)
- The squashing and silencing of Tara Reid's allegations. (Simultaneously painting historic and noble portraits of all of Trump's accusers and also of Blasey Ford, almost none of whom have 1/2 the corroborating evidence of Reid).

That's just two, and it's even leaving aside the absolute common sense reality of how urban professionals view politics.

It's pretty bizarre that you'd accept #2 and #3 but then refuse to believe that would extend to create #1.

FOXNews is one. OAN and Newsmax are tiny.

AP, NPR, ABC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC and on and on and on. I'm not even saying they are wrong for having a pro-Biden bias. I'm not saying it's even a bad thing. I'm just saying that it IS a thing, and it clearly is.

1) they are not pro-left, that's crazy
2) they are more pro-truth than the pro-Trump wing of the media, but they aren't really pro-truth

If your argument is that we need a pro-Democrat media establishment to fight against the right-wing media establishment... aren't you just proving my point?

Why not just say, "Yes, most of the cultural institutions of media are liberal because liberalism is more aligned with the truth. They have a pro-liberal bias, but that's good because they are fighting against the liars in right-wing media."?

Ill take your points line by line:

1.) The squashing and silencing of stories regarding documents from a laptop no one would allow to see and verify? Fuck right off, Tiny Gulliani, with this utter bullshit. But yeah, Ukraine which was a congressional hearing and impeachment and a Bipartisan committee said, yeah, Trump probably was guilty...totally less dubious. Honestly, I'm should stop right here, because if that's your lead point the rest belongs in the dumpster behind the dildo store next to the 4 Seasons. 

2.) The silencing? Reade had her say, Biden said she should have her say, and...what. It was reported on, there wasn't any trial. Or an audio bragging about sexually assaulting women. What exactly else is the media supposed to do here?

You lost any notion of ground that can be attributed to Common Sense with your first fucking statement. Newsflash, dipshit, you're speaking in weird assumptions like the Texags thread or the article that says "Well, he can't be a con man because I believe him. I categorically reject #1, and furthermore, you can't fucking prove it. Or you won't. Stop using fucking words like "tiny" and use numbers, the burden of proof is on YOU. THere have been scores of articles talking about how fake news spreads on FB like 8 times faster than real news, plus the proliferation of right wing websites. Include youtube pages. I noticed you ignored radio syndication of Hannity and the Grand Daddy, Rush Limbaugh, who lives in the ears of literally tens of millions of Americans for hours weekly. So get fucked with your "left wing media bias" bullshit. You're like the fucking asshole posting the Red Map and saying "Look at all the land that votes red." Channel numbers don't equal eyeballs. 

Also, a special note of "Fuck off" listing the AP and NPR as widely biased. They're just fucking TIRED.

Don't put words in my mouth about my point. I never made that point. My point was that you're literally full of shit and you're using your facts and  your assumptions as Evidence. Again, Tiny Gulliani. If I had a second point, it's that you're a fucking fool if you think the Right Wing media somehow is vastly dwarfed by left wing media. That's my fucking point. If it were so fucking dwarfed and silent it wouldn't be being championed by over half the fucking country. How's that for Common Sense. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

1.) The squashing and silencing of stories regarding documents from a laptop no one would allow to see and verify? Fuck right off, Tiny Gulliani, with this utter bullshit. But yeah, Ukraine which was a congressional hearing and impeachment and a Bipartisan committee said, yeah, Trump probably was guilty...totally less dubious. Honestly, I'm should stop right here, because if that's your lead point the rest belongs in the dumpster behind the dildo store next to the 4 Seasons. 

I'm not saying all stories are equally valid, just pointing out the obvious disparity in treatment. You can even argue the disparity is valid, but it's still a disparity.

The media should demand that Biden at least dispute the allegations. They don't even ask.

Quote

2.) The silencing? Reade had her say, Biden said she should have her say, and...what. It was reported on, there wasn't any trial. Or an audio bragging about sexually assaulting women. What exactly else is the media supposed to do here?

1 - The media clearly buried it.
2 - The media openly took Biden's side.
3 - The media tried constantly to tear Reade apart.

They did the same for Bill Clinton's multiple credible accusers, including his rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, throughout the 1990s.

Trump's accusers? Professional photo layouts with completely uncritical coverage.

Quote

THere have been scores of articles talking about how fake news spreads on FB like 8 times faster than real news, plus the proliferation of right wing websites. Include youtube pages. I noticed you ignored radio syndication of Hannity and the Grand Daddy, Rush Limbaugh, who lives in the ears of literally tens of millions of Americans for hours weekly.

Why would I talk about social media and obvious hack right-wing commentary?

"LOOK OVER THERE!"

Quote

So get fucked with your "left wing media bias" bullshit.

You didn't argue with points #2 and #3. Amping up your rhetoric doesn't mean much or impress me.

EPIC LIBERAL CUSSING
 

[burntorangebongos 10681]

1 hour ago, kevwun said:

Using his own words isn't substantial?  We're just telling you what he believes.  He thinks Hunter Biden's laptop is a legitimate news story.  Explain how someone can believe that without having brainworms.

It is a legit news story, are you crazy? How else would we know Hunter has a nine inch dick, genius? 

[SydneyCarton 47885]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm not saying all stories are equally valid, just pointing out the obvious disparity in treatment. You can even argue the disparity is valid, but it's still a disparity.

The media should demand that Biden at least dispute the allegations. They don't even ask.

1 - The media clearly buried it.
2 - The media openly took Biden's side.
3 - The media tried constantly to tear Reade apart.

They did the same for Bill Clinton's multiple credible accusers, including his rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, throughout the 1990s.

Trump's accusers? Professional photo layouts with completely uncritical coverage.

Why would I talk about social media and obvious hack right-wing commentary?

"LOOK OVER THERE!"

You didn't argue with points #2 and #3. Amping up your rhetoric doesn't mean much or impress me.

EPIC LIBERAL CUSSING
 

First off, you keep talking to me about addressing #2 and #3 in your prior posts, but in both places you only had 2 points. Literally. If your third was "Common Sense," well I addressed that you clearly have none or you have your own biases on when you decide to trot it out. 

Biden disputed the allegations. But your nit picking the media? Ok. 

Why would you mention Social Media, despite having Media in the name, when it disseminates hundreds or articles main lined into people from fringe groups? I'm not sure if you've noticed, but it's all "news" these days in the minds of half this country. InfoWars? Right Wing, lived forever on YouTube and FB. Charlie Kirk? Whoever, it's all Media if given equal credence. You want to talk about how so much more media is left and cite MSNBC and CNN and some others despite their combined ratings being beaten by right wing ratings totals? Then guess what, you get to deal with all the fringe local "media" websites create by right wing groups like The Washington Times. And you can't address the ownership of local stations by Sinclair Group. The have 200 local stations in 100 media markets. 

Don't think I haven't noticed that you've conveniently switched the direction of your post from some version of "Left Wing Media Bias Vastly Outweighs/Outnumbers Right Wing Numbers/Voice" to "They're nicer to Biden." Which is again, an opinion. You linked a PBS article that a deep dive and said "Eh, nothingburger this lady seems like an outlier." 

I dont speak the way I do to try and impress you. It's a reflection of my level of contempt for your bizarre take and insistence of dying on that hill. But I suppose no on here is surprised by your behavior. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

Quote

Another leading candidate is former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. President Trump fired her 10 days into the administration for refusing to defend his travel ban for visitors from majority Muslim countries. Yates referenced that episode in remarks at the Democratic convention this year.

"That was the start of his relentless attacks on our democratic institutions and countless dedicated public servants," she said.

Before she became known for how she left Justice, Yates had been a career prosecutor, meaning she worked in top jobs under Democrats and Republicans, for 27 years. She brought to justice corrupt public officials in her native state of Georgia as well as Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph.

Yates' supporters point out that during the Obama years, she helped promote education programs for incarcerated people and phased out DoJ's contracts with private prisons. Trump appointees later reversed both those moves.

 

[washparkhorn 9935]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Yates' supporters point out that during the Obama years, she helped promote education programs for incarcerated people and phased out DoJ's contracts with private prisons.

Hell yes.

[bad_teammate 13132]

28 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Why would you mention Social Media, despite having Media in the name

hahaha oh my fucking god go away you're an idiot

21 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

What if we made decisions like this based on trying to achieve goals we want and move our country in specific directions instead of constantly fucking seeing everything through the lens of how it might make Trump mad? What if we chose an AG because they are a champion of a specific legal issue or set of issues? What if we chose them like it mattered instead of coming up with it like drafting an epic burn on Twitter?

Jesus Christ.

[closetohumping 17404]

Powell said the military has seized the Dominion servers

[bad_teammate 13132]

In related news...

A homeless man covered in his own feces said that my hat was a satellite dish.

[wildcat09 29260]

Greenwald can be right on some shit and still suck. Indeed, he is right on some shit and still sucks. This doesn't require a fucking dissertation.

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

Greenwald was/is an amazing reporter and did some amazing work. His critiques of the media were, and to a lesser extent still are, spot on. But he has completely lost his fucking marbles when it comes to almost everything else. It’s hard to square the guy who broke the Snowden story with the guy who obsesses about “cancel culture” and thinks that all the editors at the Intercept are out to silence him because they tried to edit his pieces. And on a more personal note, fuck that motherfucker for constantly going on Tucker Carlson, there’s no fucking excuse for that shit. 

[SydneyCarton 47885]

43 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

hahaha oh my fucking god go away you're an idiot

 

Tongue in Cheek dipshit, but way to ignore the rest of a substantive post and even sentence because you can't address it at all. 

Edited November 20, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[G650 14108]

12 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

But he has completely lost his fucking marbles when it comes to almost everything else.

100%, and this was the point everyone is trying to make.

 

I'm not even bagging on the guy, I genuinely think he has some serious mental issues right now and I feel sorry for him more than anything. But he is clearly off the reservation lately.

[wildcat09 29260]

Just now, G650 said:

100%, and this was the point everyone is trying to make.

 

I'm not even bagging on the guy, I genuinely think he has some serious mental issues right now and I feel sorry for him more than anything. But he is clearly off the reservation lately.

His only mental issue is narcissism.

[G650 14108]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

His only mental issue is narcissism.

No, it's more than that. Dude is ill. He can only function as a bomb throwing outsider, he cannot just be part of the in group. That's running into the reality that the out group is Trump and his followers, who are diametrically opposed to Greenwald's beliefs in most ways, and he is coming apart at the seams. It's bad.

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

His only mental issue is narcissism.

Whom among us?

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, G650 said:

He can only function as a bomb throwing outsider, he cannot just be part of the in group.

Are you talking about me or Greenwald?

[kevwun 15653]

Why not both?

[G650 14108]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Are you talking about me or Greenwald?

[Neonmoon 38127]

I feel like I saw a documentary about this guy. Maybe I’m mistaken

 

[henrygandorf 29179]

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The media establishment has a massive pro-Biden bias.

republican talking points!

[washparkhorn 9935]

44 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I feel like I saw a documentary about this guy. Maybe I’m mistaken

 

The Old Gang.

Maybe they can get his brother, Zeke, to run the vaccine distribution. For those under 75 only, of course.

[UpperWestside 6136]

8 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

It is a legit news story, are you crazy? How else would we know Hunter has a nine inch dick, genius? 

Of everything that has happened in the last five years this barely registers with me. I mean the mountain of bull we have had to listen to or read about day after day was a beat down for the country as a whole. 

A story peddled by a lawyer with brainworms who is representing the outgoing narcissist-in-chief, who also has brainworms, is not something to take real seriously, especially when they would not let the story be verified in any quantifiable way. Giving that story to the New York Post is akin to handing it to The National Enquirer. 

[Bruh Man 3160]

12 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

As usual, the Greenwald attacks are entirely without substance and 100% revolving around social media obsessions. Pathetic.

Also... the Biden administration is going to be openly hostile to anything progressive.

 

I refuse to believe Biden (and Harris) are this stupid. Dems need to find another attack dog if that's what they're looking for because Rahm should be persona non grata status for the modern Dem party.

[Js1 85114]

28 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

I refuse to believe Biden (and Harris) are this stupid. Dems need to find another attack dog if that's what they're looking for because Rahm should be persona non grata status for the modern Dem party.

The notoriously leak-proof Biden campaign continues to be sealed tight. Don’t believe unnamed sources. It’s people posturing for jobs to get their names out there.  Which gives the Twitter outrage machine for fuel 

[Bullneck 18987]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/climate/native-american-interior-secretary.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Native American for Interior?

[Neonmoon 38127]

It’s always a Tuesday

 

[Js1 85114]

Blinken for State

guessing Rice was not going to get confirmed bc of Benghazi

 

[NWBuck 8548]

10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Blinken for State

guessing Rice was not going to get confirmed bc of Benghazi

 

I hope Winkin gets a look, and Nod as well- maybe for an undersecretary position. Although, given their well documented incidents of night sailing in shoes, the confirmation process would be a fight.

[Hank Kingsley 20710]

 

[SydneyCarton 47885]

Does this mean bt and Hugo are going to have to stop grumbling for 8 minutes?

[Texaspython 231]

Blinken is a great choice. In retrospect, a very obvious choice.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Texaspython

[Hank Kingsley 20710]