Take the L, Pussy (Documenting the Coup Until Trump Concedes)

[UDontKnow 10,440]

19 minutes ago, Wanker Bob said:

That would explain being indifferent but nothing there explains the extreme hatred to the level of thinking a failed businessman with multiple bankruptcies, bankrupt casinos, racist statements, and major sex scandal issues would be a preferable president. 

She had a respectable if mostly centrist voting record in the senate in 8 years and even voted in line with Bush 2 almost 50 percent of the time. Absolutely nothing in her record screams extremist or communist. If anything is screams pragmatic centrist and definitely nothing for Republicans to hate so intensely they'd turn the country over to the vile evil ineptness of a trump. 

The entire republican voter population was victim to pure lies and propaganda. Never once actually cared enough to check the record and get it straight on either of them. An easily fooled population that votes with it's feelings is the Achilles' heel of America. 

It can be both an aggressive Republican propaganda machine and her pathetic excuse of a campaign which paved the way for undoubtedly the worst President in American history.

[Dahobbs 17,526]

6 minutes ago, UDontKnow said:

You clearly lack reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. You don't demonize an entire group for a few bad apples. Maybe try practicing as a physician before you take shots.

I am not against universal healthcare, in fact, I'm all for it. You know what else I am for? Making collegiate and postgraduate education more affordable. I am all for cutting out the middle men including insurance companies and attorneys that drive up the cost of healthcare. I am for tightening the leash on Big Pharma as thanks to them and bought out politicians (who are mostly attorneys by training) have influenced the practice of medicine and caused the opioid crisis. Healthcare accounts for 18% of GDP and that is a shame because healthcare should not be a for profit enterprise.  

You complain about demonizing all physicians by in turn demonizing malpractice lawsuits. Here is a secret: sometimes your profession fucks up, big time. Pushing those failures onto your patients by getting rid of malpractice suits is bullshit. 

I have no issue with this rest of your post. 

[UDontKnow 10,440]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You complain about demonizing all physicians by in turn demonizing malpractice lawsuits. Here is a secret: sometimes your profession fucks up, big time. Pushing those failures onto your patients by getting rid of malpractice suits is bullshit. 

I have no issue with this rest of your post. 

This was published in the last month. I am glad Texas is a state with TORT reform.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/939917

EDIT: I am not averse to physicians held responsible for actual malpractice. But having non-clinical people dictate what studies I can and can't order is a huge no-no from most physicians, myself included.

Edited November 14, 2020 by UDontKnow

[Dahobbs 17,526]

6 minutes ago, UDontKnow said:

This was published in the last month. I am glad Texas is a state with TORT reform.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/939917

Do you want to provide anecdotes of the horrible things doctors have done? You should be asking why the existence of tort reform hasn't decreased your premiums. It was never about helping doctors. You shouldn't have any issue with bad doctors being held accountable and good doctors being given the opportunity to partially rectify their mistakes. 

But sure, buy the bullshit from the same party that gave us Trump. That seems smart. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17,526]

5 minutes ago, UDontKnow said:

This was published in the last month. I am glad Texas is a state with TORT reform.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/939917

EDIT: I am not averse to physicians held responsible for actual malpractice. But having non-clinical people dictate what studies I can and can't order is a huge no-no from most physicians, myself included.

Do you think malpractice lawsuits do that or insurance carriers? Hint: it is the latter.

[UDontKnow 10,440]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Do you want to provide anecdotes of the horrible things doctors have done? You should be asking why the existence of tort reform hasn't decreased your premiums. It was never about helping doctors. You shouldn't have any issue with bad doctors being held accountable and good doctors being given the opportunity to partially rectify their mistakes. 

But sure, by the bullshit from the same party that gave us Trump. That seems smart. 

I have never voted Republican in my life and I never would because I am a son of immigrants and Republicans are the party of big business. My contention is that while Hillary Clinton is nowhere possibly as evil as Donald Trump, she was not this beacon of light put forward by the Democratic Party. For someone who had been reviled in DC for the longest time, having an ambiguous campaign did not do her or the nation any favors. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by UDontKnow

[staboner 4,969]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's the thing though.  I didn't vote for either of them because of my distaste.  However, I misunderestimated what a shitheel Donald J. Trump is and precisely how unfit for the presidency he was.  By the same token, I can't seem to muster the distaste for Hildawg that I once had.  I suppose this is hindsight bias, but I have also had the opportunity to consider what makes a terrible, unfit executive versus someone I vaguely disliked "personally" and on policy (less vague) that I concede would have done a decent job in the office simply by intellect and temperament.

good insight. I personally saw this shit's shittyness long ago so I was aware of this CF in the making. I was however unaware of the part of the US that was so ready to jump the chasm of logic though. very much unappreciated the hatred built up in those 8 years of Obama presidenting while black

In my business life I have learned the hard way that character matters much much more than anything else. Character is the precursor for trust and trust enables teamwork. How do you check out someone's character in a few hours interview? I have no clue. Sadly most of my ideas involve asking potentially illegal questions. Maybe Trump Trolley problem?

Politics for me was being 7 years old for Regan's EC landslide

I know ya 7. but you gonna be a 7 year dog walking no house having motherfucker!

 

[Dahobbs 17,526]

Just now, UDontKnow said:

I have never voted Republican in my life and I never would because I am a son of immigrants and Republicans are the party of big business. My contention is that while Hillary Clinton is nowhere possibly is as evil as Donald Trump, she was not this beacon of light put forward by the Democratic Party. For someone who had been reviled in DC for the longest time, having an ambiguous campaign did not do her or the nation any favors. 

I don't have an issue with that. Hillary was a pragmatist, not a saint. 

[Bullneck 19,073]

 

 

[UDontKnow 10,440]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't have an issue with that. Hillary was a pragmatist, not a saint. 

I don't believe for a second that any American politician is or has been a saint. For being a pragmatist, she sure took a lot for granted including the Republican Party (she should have seen what was coming after watching the entirety of Obama's second term), FOX News, and the people she surrounded herself with (i.e. Anthony Weiner by proxy of Huma Abedin). 

And I don't believe her approach to healthcare was ever pragmatic. Aside from what I posted ad nauseam, her approach allowed conservatives to scare the American public with threats of individuals losing access to their long-established physicians (which clearly was not the case). I think Hillary is highly intelligent, but for a combination of reasons including not playing well with others, not having a good circle of advisers, some impulsivity, and a fair degree of arrogance, she has not lived up to her potential as a politician. 

[Rimbo 25,911]

2 hours ago, Wanker Bob said:

I've still never seen anyone explain just what was so bad about Hillary. What about her policies or abilities as a politician were bad? Her record in Congress wasn't poor, definitely better than both Cruz and Cornyn, and she was mostly left center but closer to center much like Bill. I've never seen anything to suggest she would have been a bad president let alone anywhere near as destructive and inept as trump. 

I'm convinced it's all just a right wing republican Fox news smear job. They spent so much time and effort slandering her over and over that you people just fell for it and created this intense dislike or hatred that's based purely on propaganda. How many times will you let republican propaganda fuck with your head with lies before you wake up? 

Are you really this dense? Look, I held my nose and voted for her in 2016, knowing full well that it was a lost cause, but if you really don't know, then you can't accuse Trump fans of being in a bubble.

Let's count the ways.

1. You gotta go to Michael Moore, who I despise, but he had his ear to the ground on this back in early Spring of 2016 and knew what was up. When Bill Clinton became president, he not only failed to reverse NAFTA, he failed to support any training programs to help the displaced blue collar workers. This was the beginning of a generation of the Democratic Party taking union votes for granted, while doing nothing that actually helped them. Nominating the wife of the man who began this trend, and then not even sending her to one of the states affected by it, while the opponent deliberately courted those votes with protectionist rhetoric (that, mind you, he delivered on while on office)? Absolute idiocy from the Democrats.

2. Running for president, Charisma cannot be your dump stat. She's just unlikable. The reason the nasty truths about her husband and her opponent don't stick is because they have charisma. They stick on her because she doesn't.

3. She accomplished almost nothing, and the very few accomplishments she does have are dismal failures. She only entered the public eye because she was the wife of a popular president. When he cheated on her, she cowardly choose not to ditch him, to remain in a place where she could gain political power. As for her accomplishments, Hillarycare took a flawed health system and made it worse. Her highlight as SecState was the embarrassingly bad "reset button" fiasco with Russia. ("Hey Putin, let's go back to the good old days when your country was on the verge of complete economic collapse and innocuous on the world stage!")

That's the short list. Everything there... that's not GOP bullshit, those are verifiable facts.

[Pato del Muerto 52,486]

There are also the attacks on the women that have accused her husband of sexual assault, while backing the women that accused Trump of the same. 
 

and there was something about during her career in law a long time ago being really aggressive for something, but I can’t recall the details of why it was bad or hypocritical or whatever. 

[burntorangebongos 10,710]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

 

 

[Wanker Bob 379]

23 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Are you really this dense? Look, I held my nose and voted for her in 2016, knowing full well that it was a lost cause, but if you really don't know, then you can't accuse Trump fans of being in a bubble.

Let's count the ways.

1. You gotta go to Michael Moore, who I despise, but he had his ear to the ground on this back in early Spring of 2016 and knew what was up. When Bill Clinton became president, he not only failed to reverse NAFTA, he failed to support any training programs to help the displaced blue collar workers. This was the beginning of a generation of the Democratic Party taking union votes for granted, while doing nothing that actually helped them. Nominating the wife of the man who began this trend, and then not even sending her to one of the states affected by it, while the opponent deliberately courted those votes with protectionist rhetoric (that, mind you, he delivered on while on office)? Absolute idiocy from the Democrats.

2. Running for president, Charisma cannot be your dump stat. She's just unlikable. The reason the nasty truths about her husband and her opponent don't stick is because they have charisma. They stick on her because she doesn't.

3. She accomplished almost nothing, and the very few accomplishments she does have are dismal failures. She only entered the public eye because she was the wife of a popular president. When he cheated on her, she cowardly choose not to ditch him, to remain in a place where she could gain political power. As for her accomplishments, Hillarycare took a flawed health system and made it worse. Her highlight as SecState was the embarrassingly bad "reset button" fiasco with Russia. ("Hey Putin, let's go back to the good old days when your country was on the verge of complete economic collapse and innocuous on the world stage!")

That's the short list. Everything there... that's not GOP bullshit, those are verifiable facts.

1) it wasn't just Clinton not helping workers. Any legislation that would have helped workers gets blocked by Republicans if they have the power to do so. Not sure why that would make someone choose a guy who literally stiffs the small business man at every chance he gets and was easily verifiable in 2016. 

2) she's unlikable but trump is just such a great guy? Compared to trump she's a saint. Personality issues with trump were easily verifiable in 2016 in fact he hit you over the head with them. 

3) she was way too hawkish and republican like for my tastes which make the republican hatred of her ironic and silly. She backed Bush on the patriot act and supported the invasion of Iraq.p

On the good side her '93 health care act that was shot down later paved the way for CHIP that has helped millions of low income children.  She was instrumental in the SMART treaty.  She supported expanded FMLA for families of wounded veterans. Was big in getting the Copenhagen Climate Change Accord enacted. Among other things. 

Still not seeing how she's so reviled by Republicans other than pure brainwashed lunacy. It appears the worst of her attributes and actions would be considered the absolute best of trump. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Wanker Bob

[Bama Chick 28,596]

It can be both an aggressive Republican propaganda machine and her pathetic excuse of a campaign which paved the way for undoubtedly the worst President in American history.

But her “pathetic excuse for a campaign” predates the right’s absolute unhinged vitriol towards her.

Hillary was painted as a murderer, a svengali type madwoman, and evil personified well before 2016.

Shit, half the country blamed HER for her husband’s bullshittery.

She was vilified for staying with him. She would have been savaged for leaving him.

Her role as a mother was portrayed as either neglectful or abusive.

She was the power mad manipulative evil wicked witch puppetmaster.

All of those narratives were set in stone decades before she ran for office.

To use her 2016 campaign as the basis for the negative feelings about her is woefully inadequate and ignorant.

[atomheartbevo 89,628]

3 hours ago, Satchel said:

One of the more frustrating things about reading commentary on Hillary is how she is always characterized as a terrible person. Very few ever take the time to describe what terrible looks like in Hillary and why she deserves to be compared to Trump. 

Rush Limbaugh, Drudge Report,  and Fox News spent the 90s demonizing the shit out of her and her husband - arguably the Clintons are what made Rush, Fox News, and Drudge Report.

That stuck with a lot of people, for better or for worse.

I don't like her these days, because she did a piss-poor job with her campaign in key states.

[UDontKnow 10,440]

1 minute ago, Bama Chick said:

But her “pathetic excuse for a campaign” predates the right’s absolute unhinged vitriol towards her.

Hillary was painted as a murderer, a svengali type madwoman, and evil personified well before 2016.

Shit, half the country blamed HER for her husband’s bullshittery.

She was vilified for staying with him. She would have been savaged for leaving him.

Her role as a mother was portrayed as either neglectful or abusive.

She was the power mad manipulative evil wicked witch puppetmaster.

All of those narratives were set in stone decades before she ran for office.

To use her 2016 campaign as the basis for the negative feelings about her is woefully inadequate and ignorant.

The 2016 campaign is the basis for MY negative feelings towards her as I was always going to vote Democratic. I was willing to overlook all of her past shortcomings, but it was damn clear that she took Trump and Republican Party for granted as an opponent. With the rise of the Tea Party movement in the Republican Party, you knew they were going to demonize her every chance they got, no matter if she was actually in the wrong (use of personal server - which was overblown) or was not at fault (Benghazi). She got lucky that the Democratic Party spent most of their time fighting to keep Bernie Sanders off of the ticket (for good reason, he's too damn polarizing) and she came off as the more moderate candidate. This time around, any rumblings of her running again got quashed quickly and thank goodness for that. If it were another Clinton-Trump match up, there's a good chance Trump would have repeated even with the pandemic. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

5 minutes ago, UDontKnow said:

The 2016 campaign is the basis for MY negative feelings towards her as I was always going to vote Democratic. I was willing to overlook all of her past shortcomings, but it was damn clear that she took Trump and Republican Party for granted as an opponent. With the rise of the Tea Party movement in the Republican Party, you knew they were going to demonize her every chance they got, no matter if she was actually in the wrong (use of personal server - which was overblown) or was not at fault (Benghazi). She got lucky that the Democratic Party spent most of their time fighting to keep Bernie Sanders off of the ticket (for good reason, he's too damn polarizing) and she came off as the more moderate candidate. This time around, any rumblings of her running again got quashed quickly and thank goodness for that. If it were another Clinton-Trump match up, there's a good chance Trump would have repeated even with the pandemic. 

Bernie would have beat trump in 2016. Would have won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Also would have won Nevada and lost Arizona and Georgia. 

Obviously we will never know but the polling of the big 3 states (MI, WI, and Penn) was wrong this year and wrong in 2016. I don't agree with Bernie on a lot of things but I wholeheartedly supported him in the 2016 Democratic primary because he had a much better chance of winning the damn thing against Trump, but the Democratic Party rigged the primary for HIllary because it was “her turn.”

Trump’s campaign in 2016 was actually pretty good. He turned a lot of Obama midwestern voters and had just enough help from the russians And Manafort to pull it off.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

Hillary was unlikable. That was her main problem. Still is. Period 

Yes Trump was and is a piece of shit, but that didn’t help Hillary 

When a large portion of your base doesn’t like the candidate and doesn’t motivate them, you will lose 

 

 

[Satchel 6,933]

It could be argued that Hillary accomplished as much if  not more than both GWB and BHO did prior to assuming the presidency, especially if one considers her work around health care and families, especially women and children. Hillary obviously struck many as arrogant but what is often called arrogance in women would be viewed confidence in men. 

Republicans were keenly aware of Hillary’s 66% approval rating during a two year period as Sec’y of State and understood that she would be the odds on favorite to head the Democratic ticket in 2016. The withering attacks on her that ensued helped paint a picture of her that minimized her gifts and magnified her shortcoming. It was the most complete takedown of a competent politician in recent memory.

[Rimbo 25,911]

45 minutes ago, Wanker Bob said:

1) it wasn't just Clinton not helping workers. Any legislation that would have helped workers gets blocked by Republicans if they have the power to do so. Not sure why that would make someone choose a guy who literally stiffs the small business man at every chance he gets and was easily verifiable in 2016. 

2) she's unlikable but trump is just such a great guy? Compared to trump she's a saint. Personality issues with trump were easily verifiable in 2016 in fact he hit you over the head with them. 

3) she was way too hawkish and republican like for my tastes which make the republican hatred of her ironic and silly. She backed Bush on the patriot act and supported the invasion of Iraq.p

On the good side her '93 health care act that was shot down later paved the way for CHIP that has helped millions of low income children.  She was instrumental in the SMART treaty.  She supported expanded FMLA for families of wounded veterans. Was big in getting the Copenhagen Climate Change Accord enacted. Among other things. 

Still not seeing how she's so reviled by Republicans other than pure brainwashed lunacy. It appears the worst of her attributes and actions would be considered the absolute best of trump. 

 

30 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Rush Limbaugh, Drudge Report,  and Fox News spent the 90s demonizing the shit out of her and her husband - arguably the Clintons are what made Rush, Fox News, and Drudge Report.

That stuck with a lot of people, for better or for worse.

I don't like her these days, because she did a piss-poor job with her campaign in key states.

Yes, the standard "blame the Republicans" counter-response. The fact is, she has, and had, very little to claim to her advantage to counter these things. Every politician gets demonized. Fact is, the Democratic Party was so enthusiastic about the idea of getting the first woman president elected, that they spent too little time examining just who that woman was. Where's Ann Richards now that we need her?

[horn4life 3,759]

What we should never underestimate is the ability of ignorant racists to be easily swayed.  I had an interesting last 10 days in that I was in New Orleans and went to the WWII museum and happened upon something that evening, I think was called "Hitler's Resume", or history or something?  Or some other complete background on his rise.  Trump, is a mirror image.  One of the things that caught my eye most was a statement about Hitler's plane tour.  Something never done before apparently.  I believe the paraphrased was, "He descended from the air like a God."

We dodged a bullet this election.  But Trump will build upon his loss, simply because the Republican party showed Trump all along the way, that  So do not be at all surprised when an even more racist, more dangerous, Trump group moves forward.  Remember.... like Hitler... everyone was against him.....

I guess the good news is that our lazy ass president is still golfing at his usual pace...

 

Edited November 15, 2020 by horn4life

[Kyrie Eleison 9,312]

i was at basketball practice.  got out, got in the car, mom said "we're at war"
i remember '88 bush-dukakis.  not sure about much before that, politically. 

that was my soph year in college. my old man...a vet...called me up and said “gotdammit, don’t go off and do something stupid like enlist. that shit’ll be over before you finish training then you’re stuck.”

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yikes.  You've mentioned your mom's peccadillos, but not Dad's.  

Compared to her, he was / is like Jerry Falwell. Senior, not junior. 

[bad_teammate 13,192]

Spending a drunken Saturday at TexAgs to see how the loonies are doing.

 

Good times.

[SilasCoade 2,622]

Quote

She would demonize the physicians as an entity for ordering unnecessary laboratory and diagnostic studies alleging that this was done to seek profits.

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, because that has never happened.  Nope, all the ills of the healthcare system were because of malpractice lawsuits. Except, those have been legislated out of existence and yet the ills remain. 

Getting off the rails, but that specifically does almost never happen. You have to be an inherently unethical sunnuvabitch to set up some kind of kickback scheme. The worst you can say happens regularly is that some lab corp or hospital group buys an office lunch or some shit to get the docs to send business their way. Maybe that works and maybe that's unethical, but it's certainly not a scheme that nets doctors more money for ordering tests. In a dozen years I have never made one dollar off any lab test. Almost no one I work with has either. It's an absurd fiction propagated by people who don't know how the system works. When I order inappropriate tests it is almost always at the patient's request b/c I'm not going to argue with Dr. Google.

 

Anyway, fuck Donald Trump and fuck anyone that thought he could possibly have been the lesser of two evils at any point in 2016 or 2020.

[Dahobbs 17,526]

18 minutes ago, Llogg said:

Getting off the rails, but that specifically does almost never happen. You have to be an inherently unethical sunnuvabitch to set up some kind of kickback scheme. The worst you can say happens regularly is that some lab corp or hospital group buys an office lunch or some shit to get the docs to send business their way. Maybe that works and maybe that's unethical, but it's certainly not a scheme that nets doctors more money for ordering tests. In a dozen years I have never made one dollar off any lab test. Almost no one I work with has either. It's an absurd fiction propagated by people who don't know how the system works. When I order inappropriate tests it is almost always at the patient's request b/c I'm not going to argue with Dr. Google.

 

Anyway, fuck Donald Trump and fuck anyone that thought he could possibly have been the lesser of two evils at any point in 2016 or 2020.

It isn't a regular occurrence in the sense that every doctor does it. But it absolutely does happen, and there are more than a few prominent examples, e.g. cardiac stenting in couple decades ago or HCA's massive penalty at the start of the century. 

[SilasCoade 2,622]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It isn't a regular occurrence in the sense that every doctor does it. But it absolutely does happen, and there are more than a few prominent examples, e.g. cardiac stenting in couple decades ago or HCA's massive penalty at the start of the century. 

Recall bias.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,189]

Hey cool, we can bitch and moan about Hillary for the millionth fucking time in the (checks notes) Trump coup thread.

Maybe this time y’all will solve the mystery of why dotard won in 2016 and we can hop in the time machine and stop it.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

The trump coup has failed. Not much left to talk about really. 

[Dahobbs 17,526]

5 minutes ago, Llogg said:

Recall bias.

? I said it happens. And it does. There are cases every year. But I agree that it is a small number of doctors, outliers in the profession. That isn't recall bias. I know this area, as I've represented both physicians and whistle blowers (who are often physicians themselves). 

[ruitxn 296]

3 hours ago, Wanker Bob said:

The entire republican voter population was victim to pure lies and propaganda. Never once actually cared enough to check the record and get it straight on either of them. An easily fooled population that votes with it's feelings is the Achilles' heel of America. 

Most were not victims.  They were complicit.

[atomheartbevo 89,628]

2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Fact is, the Democratic Party was so enthusiastic about the idea of getting the first woman president elected, that they spent too little time examining just who that woman was.

Agreed somewhat.  Plenty know just who she was, but she benefitted partly from "It's my turn", which is something that both parties engage in.

I don't know exactly how to describe it fully, but Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and plenty of others, had either served as VP (H.W. Bush, Al Gore, Joe Biden), or had ran in a previous primary, lost, and were running again (Reagan, Al Gore, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton), or had reached a certain level of "there's nothing else for them to do but run for President" (Kerry, Dole, etc.).

Too many people were like "oh yeah, I remember that person, I'll vote for them" or "oh, you know, they paid their dues, they should get their shot!"

2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Where's Ann Richards now that we need her?

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/15724992/ann-richards

I don't think she'll be much help, and I can tell you this:  if you fuck around in there at night, and try to dig up any graves, it's not APD that shows up at their leisure, it's multiple DPS troopers that show up pretty fucking fast.  Better have your escape plan mapped out.

[atomheartbevo 89,628]

2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Yes, the standard "blame the Republicans" counter-response. The fact is, she has, and had, very little to claim to her advantage to counter these things. Every politician gets demonized.

I wasn't blaming the Republicans, I was blaming Rush Limbaugh, Drudge Report, and Fox News, all of whom are media entities that had a huge financial incentive to demonize the fuck out of the Clintons.

Would we know who Drudge Report is if it weren't for a certain blowjob?  Would Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have reached an insanely massive audience in the 90s if George H. W. Bush and then Bob Dole had won the White House?

The Clintons in the 1990s were a perfect storm for the rise of radio hosts like Limbaugh, websites like Drudge, and the rise of right-leaning cable news outlets like Fox News.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I wasn't blaming the Republicans, I was blaming Rush Limbaugh, Drudge Report, and Fox News, all of whom are media entities that had a huge financial incentive to demonize the fuck out of the Clintons.

Would we know who Drudge Report is if it weren't for a certain blowjob?  Would Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have reached an insanely massive audience in the 90s if George H. W. Bush and then Bob Dole had won the White House?

The Clintons in the 1990s were a perfect storm for the rise of radio hosts like Limbaugh, websites like Drudge, and the rise of right-leaning cable news outlets like Fox News.

Nowadays drudge is decidedly anti Trump.

But the point remains. Right wing radio led by Limbaugh and Foxnews did to our parents what they thought heavy metal music was going to do to us. It brainwashed them into radical anti-American thinking.  Hell they probably think we are “libs” because we don’t suffer the same delusions as they do and think the MSM has radicalized us. 

I don’t know why the solution is exactly. But it needs to be dealt with. Fox News and Limbaugh are preying on the fears of the olds, For profit, and are destroying the country in the process. 

[SilasCoade 2,622]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

? I said it happens. And it does. There are cases every year. But I agree that it is a small number of doctors, outliers in the profession. That isn't recall bias. I know this area, as I've represented both physicians and whistle blowers (who are often physicians themselves). 

It is vanishingly small. The number is inflated in your perception. If you want to call it confirmation bias, fine. Either way, you are overweighting the cases that support your preconceived idea.

[Pato del Muerto 52,486]

2 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

The trump coup has failed. Not much left to talk about really. 

When coups fail, the co-conspirators are dead or in jail... 

[atomheartbevo 89,628]

29 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I don’t know why the solution is exactly. But it needs to be dealt with. Fox News and Limbaugh are preying on the fears of the olds, For profit, and are destroying the country in the process. 

Time.  Tell somebody under the age of 40 to sit around for hours in the evening watching Fox News, and watch most of them recoil in horror. They have massive backlogs of shit to watch on Netflix, HBO Max, etc.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

Nazis taking orders from the President of the United States. 

 

[Rimbo 25,911]

50 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I wasn't blaming the Republicans, I was blaming Rush Limbaugh, Drudge Report, and Fox News, all of whom are media entities that had a huge financial incentive to demonize the fuck out of the Clintons.

Would we know who Drudge Report is if it weren't for a certain blowjob?  Would Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have reached an insanely massive audience in the 90s if George H. W. Bush and then Bob Dole had won the White House?

The Clintons in the 1990s were a perfect storm for the rise of radio hosts like Limbaugh, websites like Drudge, and the rise of right-leaning cable news outlets like Fox News.

 

41 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Nowadays drudge is decidedly anti Trump.

But the point remains. Right wing radio led by Limbaugh and Foxnews did to our parents what they thought heavy metal music was going to do to us. It brainwashed them into radical anti-American thinking.  Hell they probably think we are “libs” because we don’t suffer the same delusions as they do and think the MSM has radicalized us. 

I don’t know why the solution is exactly. But it needs to be dealt with. Fox News and Limbaugh are preying on the fears of the olds, For profit, and are destroying the country in the process. 

Y'all are missing the point I was trying to make. EVERY politician has people trying to demonize them, including vast corporate media entities.

Trump remains popular despite the bulk of the media -- quite sensibly, and based on actual facts -- waging war on him. Reagan was popular despite the same (but with fewer facts). GWB is the reason people started watching Fox News and demanding alternative media in the first place. Nancy Pelosi gets it from both sides; the Right think she's too far to the Left; the Left doesn't think she's Left enough.

Every politician gets it. And yet all of these other people remain popular and well-supported.

The reason Hillary gets shit on is the same reason every politician gets shit on. She doesn't get shit on any more or less than others. She fails not because she's shit on more often; she fails because she really has very little to offer. She got nominated because she reminds certain Democrats of the Roaring 90s under her husband; she failed because the blue-collar union workers are also reminded of the 90s.

 

[Dahobbs 17,526]

31 minutes ago, Llogg said:

It is vanishingly small. The number is inflated in your perception. If you want to call it confirmation bias, fine. Either way, you are overweighting the cases that support your preconceived idea.

I have no idea what you're talking about at this point. I haven't made any broad pronouncement. I just said these things happen. I didn't say that sort of fraud is rampant in the medical profession. I think you are reading something more in my previous posts than intended. 

[Willfully Horn 8,002]

2 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

The trump coup has failed. Not much left to talk about really. 

So, there’s no chance 37  electoral voters will vote without faith, because they believe  Biden will be the tyrant? That’s excellent. Can you help me be so confident of that? I truly would be grateful. Thank you.

[elfenix 34,223]

So, there’s no chance 37  electoral voters will vote without faith, because they believe  Biden will be the tyrant? That’s excellent. Can you help me be so confident of that? I truly would be grateful. Thank you.

The electors for biden are all democratic party functionaries. These aren't random guys pulled off the street.

Edit:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/whyy.org/articles/meet-pennsylvanias-electoral-college-voters-everything-they-can-and-cant-do/amp/

[achooloco 1,067]

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

So, there’s no chance 37  electoral voters will vote without faith, because they believe  Biden will be the tyrant? That’s excellent. Can you help me be so confident of that? I truly would be grateful. Thank you.

Again, an elector from a DESIGNATED PARTY should have the wherewithal to choose the right candidate based on their own moral spectrum (as was designed). But nowadays If you think 37 motherfuckers will suddenly say trump should win bc that would make more sense in instituting a Less tyrannical and MORE  democratic government... then maybe you need more Jesus in your life cause nothing i type will convince you that people view trump as a tyrant

[Yuk 1,532]

 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

 

[Rimbo 25,911]

[washparkhorn 9,939]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,665]

17 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

 

Something something boot in your ass...

[Willfully Horn 8,002]

2 hours ago, achooloco said:

Again, an elector from a DESIGNATED PARTY should have the wherewithal to choose the right candidate based on their own moral spectrum (as was designed). But nowadays If you think 37 motherfuckers will suddenly say trump should win bc that would make more sense in instituting a Less tyrannical and MORE  democratic government... then maybe you need more Jesus in your life cause nothing i type will convince you that people view trump as a tyrant

Thanks for the info you offer, I will learn about those particulars. 
 

Of course, I wrote that viewing Biden as a tyrant might be the motivation. A not surprising conclusion among those who believe Biden stole the election. A narrative that continues to be repeated, unless I missed something.

<edit>Thanks again, I hadn’t taken the time to learn that people vote for electors when they vote for President. That does reassure me, and I am grateful to you for that.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Willfully Horn