2016 Election
Quote: beachbumbabsThere's still no need to include "IMO". He's not a member of this board. :)
OTOH, he is a breath of fresh air; Repub candidates better have their act together, because he's gonna say exactly what he thinks, and get all the media attention doing it. He's proven in the past he can support someone he thinks is capable. And has any of his criticism been wrong on the facts? Not yet that I know of.
Hi BABS! I guess you would know if he was a member here, this anonymous poster's gambling blog/forum(s) thing.
Laughing now, I typed thong, spell check changed it to thing. I meant to type thing, still funny.......
I had asked, was trying to ask, that the debate over right vs left, Dem vs Rep, etc be respectfull of the opinions of others, even if those opnions differ from yours, even when it starts to make you go a bit nuts, maybe a lot nuts. It wasn't a demand, just a polite suggestion. Welcome to Wonderland.
I've actually watched just about every season of The Apprentice (both the original version and the Celebrity version).
I just find it amazing that about 1/3 of Republicans seem to be falling for his shtick.
They are failing to see him for what he truly is: an attention whore.
Quote: ams288I would just like to point out that I don't hate Trump. I find him to be immensely entertaining.
I've actually watched just about every season of The Apprentice (both the original version and the Celebrity version).
I just find it amazing that about 1/3 of Republicans seem to be falling for his shtick.
They are failing to see him for what he truly is: an attention whore.
I guess you get a pass, BABBs already said he wasn't a member here.
That doesn't make your statement nice, or original, just marginally acceptable.
Cheers! 2F
Quote: ams288I would just like to point out that I don't hate Trump. I find him to be immensely entertaining.
They are failing to see him for what he truly is: an attention whore.
If you had your wish, AMS, how would you like for the members here to perceive you?
Is there a label you would like to attach to yourself?
If so, could you share with the rest of us? I find this whole labeling concept fascinating.
Quote: ams288I would just like to point out that I don't hate Trump. I find him to be immensely entertaining.
I've actually watched just about every season of The Apprentice (both the original version and the Celebrity version).
I just find it amazing that about 1/3 of Republicans seem to be falling for his shtick.
They are failing to see him for what he truly is: an attention whore.
Why would it amaze you that Republicans are falling for Trump's "shtick"? Democrats are falling for Hillary's...at this point, the voters are hearing a lot of things and nothing is really sorted out yet. Trump's gaining strength in the polls because he isn't afraid to have a position; that same thing may come back to hurt him later in the race when he has to actually talk about plans for getting things done.
At this point, I can say I will handle ISIS or that I am not Obama on foreign policy and no one is really challenging those statements too much--at least to the point that the press and other candidates put challenging questions out there--but that time will come. Trump and Clinton both don't fave to "flesh out" much yet...
I don't take any of them too seriously yet...
Quote: ams288I would just like to point out that I don't hate Trump. I find him to be immensely entertaining.
I've actually watched just about every season of The Apprentice (both the original version and the Celebrity version).
I just find it amazing that about 1/3 of Republicans seem to be falling for his shtick.
They are failing to see him for what he truly is: an attention whore.
I meant specifically (and should have said so), the flaws he's pointing out in what the other candidates against him are saying. I don't think he's yet given us any policy initiatives or facts that should be taken seriously, just broad (and for the most part opposed to my own viewpoint) ideas without solid basis.
But he might be the most effective stalking horse ever, with apparently the most thorough oppo research and willingness to say things bluntly, even shockingly, about what the others are doing or proposing to do. I was outraged for about a week, but now I'm simply fascinated; he's like a 6 year old with a magnifying glass and an anthill on a sunny day.
Quote: RonCWhy would it amaze you that Republicans are falling for Trump's "shtick"? Democrats are falling for Hillary's...at this point, the voters are hearing a lot of things and nothing is really sorted out yet. Trump's gaining strength in the polls because he isn't afraid to have a position; that same thing may come back to hurt him later in the race when he has to actually talk about plans for getting things done.
This is why he is resonating. Trump is manly and decisive. People like this.
I have had all kinds of bosses but one of my favorites was a guy who was very tough but very decisive. When you needed something done, you saw him. If you wanted a friendly chat you went to one of the other execs. He would want to fire an employee for loafing but once when the other execs were going to delay checks a few days for some clerical reason he fixed it because he knew those people lived day to day and could not have any delay.
Walt Disney, George Patton, and Frank Rosenthal are three of this kind of person. Tough and demanding but they knew their mission and would decide things to get it done, right or wrong they made a decision and no doubt where they stood. People flock to this. Patton's men hated him but knew under him was their best chance for survival and victory. They say everyone hated Rosenthal but they still flocked to his leadership.
America is starved for leadership. Right now we have a guy who wants to delay any decision he does not want to make. Trump is a breath of fresh air, even if I am voting for Walker.
Quote: RonCWhy would it amaze you that Republicans are falling for Trump's "shtick"? Democrats are falling for Hillary's...at this point, the voters are hearing a lot of things and nothing is really sorted out yet. Trump's gaining strength in the polls because he isn't afraid to have a position
I have to laugh at Politfact's rating so far. He makes other Republicans look informed and you can look up their scores-- maybe that's his gift.
Statements by Trump.
Mostly True 2 (6%)
Half True 3 (10%)
Mostly False 4 (13%)
False 15 (48%)
Pants on Fire 7 (23%)
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Quote: rxwineI have to laugh at Politfact's rating so far. He makes other Republicans look informed and you can look up their scores-- maybe that's his gift.
Statements by Trump.
Mostly True 2 (6%)
Half True 3 (10%)
Mostly False 4 (13%)
False 15 (48%)
Pants on Fire 7 (23%)
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Yes, Politifact...a true honest broker:
"Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP.""
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
Might as well just ask MSNBC what they think of him...
Quote: RonCYes, Politifact...a true honest broker:
"Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP.""
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
Might as well just ask MSNBC what they think of him...
Maybe we should be asking why the Republicans lie three times as often as the Democrats? Facts are facts, right? Should be objective, as politifact doesn't just say "liar", it shows facts that support or refute, in whole or in part, the statement.
Quote: beachbumbabsMaybe we should be asking why the Republicans lie three times as often as the Democrats? Facts are facts, right? Should be objective, as politifact doesn't just say "liar", it shows facts that support or refute, in whole or in part, the statement.
Thank you. Facts are facts. Until the right pretends they're not.
We live in a world where Republicans dispute legitimate facts all the time. They live in a bubble.
If anything, Politifact leans right. I've seen Rachel Maddow rip them a new one multiple times over their awful fact checking (of republican lies).
....Cue right-wingers insulting Maddow.
Quote: ams288Thank you. Facts are facts. Until the right pretends they're not.
We live in a world where Republicans dispute legitimate facts all the time. They live in a bubble.
If anything, Politifact leans right. I've seen Rachel Maddow rip them a new one multiple times over their awful fact checking (of republican lies).
....Cue right-wingers insulting Maddow.
Yes because Maddow is right about 100% of what she says....
Quote: GandlerYes because Maddow is right about 100% of what she says....
She is right 100% of the time when she uses actual facts to prove a point. Like she often does when pointing out Politifact's awful fact-checking.
The thing I like about Maddow is she's not a hot-head, her arguments are well researched and fact-checked, and she's smarter than all her critics.
Quote: GandlerYes because Maddow is right about 100% of what she says....
So much willingness to believe "facts are facts" when that is not really what is happening...the "facts" that are used aren't always "facts" at all...they are just what a particular outlet decides are "facts".
Example--Trump says 30-34 million illegals; the researchers who "know" say it is less than that, so it is "Pants on Fire". Okay--but the researchers don't really know the number all that accurately, either. I don't think illegals are running around declaring themselves here and openly breaking the law; perhaps there is a bit of a flaw in the research.
Plus, Politifact is not always right...
"On December 12, the self-appointed guardians of truth and justice at PolitiFact named President Obama’s infamous promise—that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it”—its 2013 “Lie of the Year.” An understandable choice. But in its article detailing why the President’s promise was a lie, PolitiFact neglected to mention an essential detail. In 2008, at a critical point in the presidential campaign, PolitiFact rated the “keep your plan” promise as “True.” The whole episode, and PolitiFact’s misleading behavior throughout, tells us a lot about the troubled state of “fact-checking” journalism."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-2008-politifacts-2013-lie-of-the-year-that-you-could-keep-your-health-plan-under-obamacare-it-rated-true/
Of course, some on either side will claim the other side lies more than their side does. C'mon, folks, don't buy into that pile of crap. Candidates on both sides, politicians on both sides, just about everyone on both sides...whatever...they all lie. It is our job to ask the questions, make the press ask the questions, and get the freaking truth out of them. They ALL think they are smarter than us and that we can't handle the truth.
Leaning or favoring one side or the other is fine; just don't believe every word they say!!
Quote: ams288She is right 100% of the time when she uses actual facts to prove a point. Like she often does when pointing out Politifact's awful fact-checking.
The thing I like about Maddow is she's not a hot-head, her arguments are well researched and fact-checked, and she's smarter than all her critics.
Really?
All of her critics?
That would be quite a claim to sustain, but I don't think there is anyone who believes that.
Plus I would bet a large number of media personalities think of themselves as more intelligent than all of their critics. It does not mean their ego-mania is right.
Quote: RonCSo much willingness to believe "facts are facts" when that is not really what is happening...the "facts" that are used aren't always "facts" at all...they are just what a particular outlet decides are "facts".
Example--Trump says 30-34 million illegals; the researchers who "know" say it is less than that, so it is "Pants on Fire". Okay--but the researchers don't really know the number all that accurately, either. I don't think illegals are running around declaring themselves here and openly breaking the law; perhaps there is a bit of a flaw in the research.
Plus, Politifact is not always right...
"On December 12, the self-appointed guardians of truth and justice at PolitiFact named President Obama’s infamous promise—that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it”—its 2013 “Lie of the Year.” An understandable choice. But in its article detailing why the President’s promise was a lie, PolitiFact neglected to mention an essential detail. In 2008, at a critical point in the presidential campaign, PolitiFact rated the “keep your plan” promise as “True.” The whole episode, and PolitiFact’s misleading behavior throughout, tells us a lot about the troubled state of “fact-checking” journalism."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-2008-politifacts-2013-lie-of-the-year-that-you-could-keep-your-health-plan-under-obamacare-it-rated-true/
Of course, some on either side will claim the other side lies more than their side does. C'mon, folks, don't buy into that pile of crap. Candidates on both sides, politicians on both sides, just about everyone on both sides...whatever...they all lie. It is our job to ask the questions, make the press ask the questions, and get the freaking truth out of them. They ALL think they are smarter than us and that we can't handle the truth.
Leaning or favoring one side or the other is fine; just don't believe every word they say!!
I am not hear to defend politifact, I don't think anyone here claimed that they are perfect or even good (certainly not me).
But I am just pointing out the flaws in Maddow's leftist ideology.
We all know what the number one thread is. I wonder how many here know what the other three are. Now back to the 2016 Election.
Quote: RonC. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP.""
Edited for brevity)
Might as well just ask MSNBC what they think of him...
"And the AP"?
Who the hell the the AP's give money to so that they get a special mention?
What about the Betting Strategy guys? Do I get a vote still?......;-)
Quote: GandlerReally?
All of her critics?
That would be quite a claim to sustain, but I don't think there is anyone who believes that.
All of her relevant critics (i.e. other media personalities).
I'm sure there's probably some neckbeard "critic" out there somewhere slamming her on right wing sites from his mom's basement who technically has a higher IQ. lol
Quote: ams288
We live in a world where Republicans dispute legitimate facts all the time. They live in a bubble.
Actually we live in a world where unproven things are treated as "fact" when it is convenient for one side. (e.g.: global warming, homosexuality is born not made.) So liberals cite their opinions as "fact" despite no scientific proof or in the case of global warming against all measurable results.
Quote: beachbumbabsMaybe we should be asking why the Republicans lie three times as often as the Democrats? Facts are facts, right? Should be objective, as politifact doesn't just say "liar", it shows facts that support or refute, in whole or in part, the statement.
Really? C'mon. This is a ridiculous statement. We've already been shown that Politifact's "facts" aren't always solid. Now you are just going to make an outlandish statement that Republicans lie three times more than Democrats? Politifacts has a bias and their facts are not as solid as they would like you to believe.
Quote: ams288All of her relevant critics (i.e. other media personalities).
I'm sure there's probably some neckbeard "critic" out there somewhere slamming her on right wing sites from his mom's basement who technically has a higher IQ. lol
Do you think Maddow is more academically prominent than Michael Savage?
Also, I like how you poke fun at people who you perceive as stupider than her, and you also make fun of people who have a higher IQ than her. So apparently anyone who is not identical intellectually to Maddow is wrong is some way...
Maddow is not academically acclaimed, and there is a whole swath of conservatives I could give you who have many more books, have a far larger audience, and have published many more peer reviewed papers on a variety of topics.
I hate to break it to you, Maddow is nothing special, she is a good speaker, and a good TV host, with a progressive bias, she is not going to be the next grand physicist or re-imagine literature for our generation ....
Quote: RonCReally? C'mon. This is a ridiculous statement. We've already been shown that Politifact's "facts" aren't always solid. Now you are just going to make an outlandish statement that Republicans lie three times more than Democrats? Politifacts has a bias and their facts are not as solid as they would like you to believe.
I didn't make that "outlandish" statement. Some policy research center quoted above my post did. Politifact brings their facts forward to support their true/false meter. If you don't agree with their facts, I think you have to bring forward facts yourself that refute what they're claiming. They source their information, so chances are you're arguing with the source material, its methods, or conclusions, not Politifact.
None of that holds up when it is clear that the so-called "facts" were obviously cherry picked.Quote: beachbumbabsMaybe we should be asking why the Republicans lie three times as often as the Democrats? Facts are facts, right? Should be objective, as politifact doesn't just say "liar", it shows facts that support or refute, in whole or in part, the statement.
Quote: AZDuffmanActually, you smack more of the fear that The Donald will be the nominee and tear Hillary or Bernie to pieces. Trump is generating enough energy to light Manhattan, Hillary enough to light a birthday candle.
A self-made man vs. a a woman who is running because of who she was married to? You need not be ashamed of admitting you are worried to death.
Your kidding right? The best poll out for a head to head match of Trump vs Hilary has Trump behind a solid 13%, with Hilary securing 50% of the vote, this was the PPP poll from 7/20-7/21. So at best he is 13% behind. The RCP average places him behind by 16.2% and gives Hilary 51.6% of the electorate.
Also I've already gone over this Trump is not a self made man. He inherited a significant chunk of wealth from his father and started at his fathers business with his fathers money. He has managed to grow that by not having all his ventures fail, but he is in the same category of self made as the Walton family. He was also extremely lucky to not go personally bankrupt in 1990. You act like he is an Andrew Carnegie who built himself up from nothing and that is just patently absurd. At best he is a poor mans Nelson Rockefeller, with the main difference being Nelson Rockefeller didn't almost bankrupt himself and force multiple business bankruptcies.
Quote: SanchoPanzaNone of that holds up when it is clear that the so-called "facts" were obviously cherry picked.
About the guy who "studied" politifact.
Quote:From 1986 to 1988, Robert Lichter was a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Fund-raising letters for the launch of the Center for Media and Public Affairs contained endorsements from leading right-wing figures like Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Ed Meese and Pat Robertson.
Robert Lichter’s writings and public statements also indicate a conservative worldview. At a conference sponsored by Accuracy In Media after the Gulf War, according to an AP report (4/27/91), “He said he was disappointed in statements by [Peter] Arnett upon his return from Baghdad that he was in the enemy capital on behalf of all CNN viewers, not just Americans. ‘I see a trend toward journalists seeing themselves as citizens of the world’ rather than patriotic Americans, Lichter said.”
Funding for the Center has come from the most prominent foundations of the right, including Smith Richardson (at least $298,000), Olin Foundation ($250,000), JM Foundation ($100,000) and the Coors Foundation ($55,000). (Smith Richardson gave the Center $40,000 in 1987 for its study on PBS.) These foundations also contribute heavily to more overtly right-wing media pressure groups like Reed Irvine’s Accuracy In Media, L. Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center, and David Horowitz’s Committee on Media Integrity.
The Scaife Foundation, another major right-wing funder, gave the Lichters money for their book, The Media Elite, which argued that journalists’ personal political biases made their work unreliable. (The same argument, of course, could be made about academics like the Lichters.) The study featured in the book, based on interviews with journalists conducted in 1980, was widely criticized by scholars for methodological flaws. (See Columbia Journalism Review, 11-12/85, 3-4/87; Journalism Quarterly, Winter/87; Journal of Communication, Spring/88.)
http://fair.org/press-release/study-of-bias-or-biased-study/
Quote: SanchoPanzaSo not one of the points in Lichter's piece is in dispute. How interesting!
And yet you don't accuse of Lichter of cherry picking his own viewpoints and facts. Why not? He obviously could point out other things about politifact in their favor, but he is bought and paid for.
I can prove bad things about anything all day if I just look at one aspect.
Besides, politicfact is there for you dissect whether they made the right call or not, which is more than I can say about a lot of fact spinners.
Quote: beachbumbabsI didn't make that "outlandish" statement. Some policy research center quoted above my post did. Politifact brings their facts forward to support their true/false meter. If you don't agree with their facts, I think you have to bring forward facts yourself that refute what they're claiming. They source their information, so chances are you're arguing with the source material, its methods, or conclusions, not Politifact.
If they have "their" facts, there is a problem. You did type the statement in and it is not in quotes; it looks like something you believe. It sounded to me like you believe that their facts are correct and that you think one side lies more than the other. Both are untrue as far as I can tell. If that was not what you meant, I apologize.
Quote: TwirdmanYour kidding right? The best poll out for a head to head match of Trump vs Hilary has Trump behind a solid 13%, with Hilary securing 50% of the vote, this was the PPP poll from 7/20-7/21. So at best he is 13% behind. The RCP average places him behind by 16.2% and gives Hilary 51.6% of the electorate.
Hillary is fading fast. Her unfavorables just keep going up and up. And this is all before she has really said much, The more she talks, the more people hate her.
Quote:Also I've already gone over this Trump is not a self made man. He inherited a significant chunk of wealth from his father and started at his fathers business with his fathers money. He has managed to grow that by not having all his ventures fail, but he is in the same category of self made as the Walton family. He was also extremely lucky to not go personally bankrupt in 1990. You act like he is an Andrew Carnegie who built himself up from nothing and that is just patently absurd. At best he is a poor mans Nelson Rockefeller, with the main difference being Nelson Rockefeller didn't almost bankrupt himself and force multiple business bankruptcies.
So he inherited some properties from his dad. Did you know the Trump brand back then? Did he not grow the empire? He is self-made. Much more so than Hillary who gets paid just because she was married to Bill.
I can say this for sure, if I was offered an hour of personal mentor time with Trump or Hillary I would take Trump hands down!
Quote: AZDuffmanHillary is fading fast. Her unfavorables just keep going up and up. And this is all before she has really said much, The more she talks, the more people hate her.
So he inherited some properties from his dad. Did you know the Trump brand back then? Did he not grow the empire? He is self-made. Much more so than Hillary who gets paid just because she was married to Bill.
I can say this for sure, if I was offered an hour of personal mentor time with Trump or Hillary I would take Trump hands down!
What kind of watering down of self made are you using to make Trump a self made man? Growing an empire and only failing at some of those growths does not make you a self made man. He was bred to be a real estate tycoon, he was educated to be a real estate tycoon, and he inherited everyone he needed to become a real estate tycoon and I'm supposed to be impressed that in the area of real estate he didn't flame out horribly? The guy is a mediocre to bad business man when it comes to anything not directly involving real estate; he has failed casinos, failed airlines, and numerous other smaller failed ventures.
Also I never claimed Hilary was self made, but she at least has the advantage of becoming partner in a fairly decent law firm that was not owned and operated by her father.
Quote: GandlerDo you think Maddow is more academically prominent than Michael Savage?
Yes. Absolutely.
I'll be honest, I'm not very familiar with Michael Savage.
So I did a Google search and the first result was "Michael Savage says Obama may try to seek third term."
So right there is a huge strike against his intelligence.
Maddow is a Rhodes scholar who went to Standford and Oxford. I'm feeling pretty confident she's more intelligent.
And you say you can name lots of conservatives with "more books and a larger audience." Big whoop. As if that has anything to do with a person's intelligence level....
Quote: ams288Yes. Absolutely.
I'll be honest, I'm not very familiar with Michael Savage.
So I did a Google search and the first result was "Michael Savage says Obama may try to seek third term."
So right there is a huge strike against his intelligence.
Maddow is a Rhodes scholar who went to Standford and Oxford. I'm feeling pretty confident she's more intelligent.
And you say you can name lots of conservatives with "more books and a larger audience." Big whoop. As if that has anything to do with a person's intelligence level....
I'm not going to get into the whole "more intelligent" thing because there are no real standards to decide that based on education level or college attended. Not everyone can afford to go to Standford; not everyone smart enough to become a Rhodes scholar can become one...just saying that someone went to those places DOES make one assume they are very intelligent; however, that does not mean others are not equally intelligent but without the same exact credentials.
Going to Oxford also does not mean that you have common sense enough to know you shouldn't get a blowjob from someone other than your wife in the White House (or anywhere else...)...
Savage is well-educated:
"He holds master's degrees from the University of Hawaii in medical botany and medical anthropology, and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in nutritional ethnomedicine. As Michael Weiner, he has written books on nutrition, herbal medicine, and homeopathy; as Michael Savage, he has written four political books that have reached the New York Times Best Seller List."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage
Maddow is no dummy; neither is Savage. Both have viewpoints that the other side hates.
Quote: RonCMaddow is no dummy; neither is Savage. Both have viewpoints that the other side hates.
I agree.
But Maddow doesn't pull random predictions out of her butt like the 3rd term thing I immediately saw when I googled Savage.
I'd challenge anyone to find something she said that is as crazy and ill-informed as "Obama is going to nullify the next election and have a 3rd term." (Note: I'm not looking for an opinion of hers you disagree with. That would be easy to find. I'm looking for a blatantly stupid prediction that she has made that will obviously never come true, like Savage's 3rd term nonsense).
Quote: TwirdmanThe guy is a mediocre to bad business man when it comes to anything not directly involving real estate; he has failed casinos, failed airlines, and numerous other smaller failed ventures.
So, he has succeeded in one more thing than Hillary has then?
Sorry, I know it kills liberals to hear it, but Trump is self-made. So what if he was bread and educated in real estate? Real estate is no easy business. It takes brass balls to make it in real estate.
Quote:Also I never claimed Hilary was self made, but she at least has the advantage of becoming partner in a fairly decent law firm that was not owned and operated by her father.
Just as the wife of the Governor,
Quote: ams288I agree.
But Maddow doesn't pull random predictions out of her butt like the 3rd term thing I immediately saw when I googled Savage.
I'd challenge anyone to find something she said that is as crazy and ill-informed as "Obama is going to nullify the next election and have a 3rd term." (Note: I'm not looking for an opinion of hers you disagree with. That would be easy to find. I'm looking for a blatantly stupid prediction that she has made that will obviously never come true, like Savage's 3rd term nonsense).
Not a random prediction, but an accusation that was unfounded when researched:
"Maddow doesn’t support laws mandating drug testing for welfare recipients and she recently ran a segment attacking the Koch brothers for supporting such laws in Florida."
"Only problem for Maddow and her progressive followers is that the Kochs are not involved with this law in Florida. They don’t support the group Maddow insists they support. Her entire vicious report is based on a demonstratively false premise."
"Representatives of the Florida Justice Institute and the state’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union each told the Erik Wemple Blog that they encountered no evidence of the Koch brothers among the law’s champions."
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/busted-rachel-maddow-msnbc-caught-in-embarrassing-lie-refuse-to-correct/
Ill-informed easily fits her accusation. Crazy? Quite possibly crazy in trying to blame the Koch brothers for everything...in spite of the apparent lack of actual evidence.
Oh--and President Obama did say he could win a third term, right?
"I actually think I'm a pretty good President. I think if I ran, I could win. But I can't."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-third-term-win-ethiopia/
So Savage isn't the only one who has at least considered the possibility....crazy as it sounds....
Because he doesn't pretend to be 100 percent "objective." His critical analyses of more than a score of Politifact's erroneous conclusions without so much as demurral speaks loudly to his veracity.Quote: rxwineAnd yet you don't accuse of Lichter of cherry picking his own viewpoints and facts. Why not?
Quote: RonCNot a random prediction, but an accusation that was unfounded when researched:
"Maddow doesn’t support laws mandating drug testing for welfare recipients and she recently ran a segment attacking the Koch brothers for supporting such laws in Florida."
"Only problem for Maddow and her progressive followers is that the Kochs are not involved with this law in Florida. They don’t support the group Maddow insists they support. Her entire vicious report is based on a demonstratively false premise."
"Representatives of the Florida Justice Institute and the state’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union each told the Erik Wemple Blog that they encountered no evidence of the Koch brothers among the law’s champions."
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/busted-rachel-maddow-msnbc-caught-in-embarrassing-lie-refuse-to-correct/
Ill-informed easily fits her accusation. Crazy? Quite possibly crazy in trying to blame the Koch brothers for everything...in spite of the apparent lack of actual evidence.
Well this doesn't satisfy my request at all.
Ill-informed according to that right wing website (and apparently also the Washington Post, which the right wing site then trashes while still relying on their reporting to try to make their point). In the video at the top of the page she says her reporting stands. Was there any follow up after that?
Definitely not crazy. The Koch brothers are pulling the strings of lots of shadowy right-wing groups and have many Republican politicians in their pocket..... Hey, even Donald Trump agrees with me on that!
Quote:Oh--and President Obama did say he could win a third term, right?
"I actually think I'm a pretty good President. I think if I ran, I could win. But I can't."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-third-term-win-ethiopia/
So Savage isn't the only one who has at least considered the possibility....crazy as it sounds....
No. Savage is crazy in this regard.
Are there any members here who would like to put actual money down on whether or not Obama has third term?? I say he won't. Anyone wanna take that action??
Quote: AZDuffmanA self-made man vs. a a woman who is running because of who she was married to? You need not be ashamed of admitting you are worried to death.
Donald Trump is a self-made man? No.
When Friedrich Drumpf immigrated from Germany to the United States at age 16 in 1885, he had literally nothing-- he earned a meager living as a barber. He eventually became a restauranteur in the wild frontier of the Yukon Territory. His son Fred, Jr. (born in 1905) got into New York real estate. By the time Donald was born in 1946, Fred Jr. was already extremely wealthy- he had a portfolio of 27,000 residential units in Brooklyn & Queens.
As for Donald, he's just another spoiled trust fund baby with a sizeable inheritence. Or as Republicans would say, A Self-Made Man.
Quote: ams288I'm already annoyed at the right-wing repeatedly claiming the "liberal media" and liberals in general are afraid of Trump.
Yeah, it makes me chuckle.
Newest survey results have Jeb and Walker basically neck & neck with Hillary. Walker would lose to her by 1 point. Jeb would beat her by 1 point. It's a coin toss, well within the margin of error.
But Trump? It's not even close. Hillary beats Trump by 12 points. Trump's problem is very simple: his unfavorable rating is 59 percent. No other contender of either party is so despised. Most people just don't like him.
I'm begging you, GOP-- nominate this guy.
Quote: reno
As for Donald, he's just another spoiled trust fund baby with a sizeable inheritence. Or as Republicans would say, A Self-Made Man.
Uh, no. This would describe say the Kennedy family, Chelsea Clinton, and a few others. OTOH, The Donald took a run of the mill real estate business and made it an empire. He made TRUMP a brand. How many other real estate brands like this can you name?
Trump is like Steve Wynn. Born into a business but took it way beyond what the parents had. This is a self-made man.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is a self-made man.
If my dad owned 27,000 houses & apartments, would you tell me that I was born into wealth? Would you refer to me as middle class?
Quote: AZDuffman... a self-made man.
Abraham Lincoln Had It Right - “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
Quote: ams288Well this doesn't satisfy my request at all.
Ill-informed according to that right wing website (and apparently also the Washington Post, which the right wing site then trashes while still relying on their reporting to try to make their point). In the video at the top of the page she says her reporting stands. Was there any follow up after that?
Definitely not crazy. The Koch brothers are pulling the strings of lots of shadowy right-wing groups and have many Republican politicians in their pocket..... Hey, even Donald Trump agrees with me on that!
No. Savage is crazy in this regard.
Are there any members here who would like to put actual money down on whether or not Obama has third term?? I say he won't. Anyone wanna take that action??
Savage is a radio host. If the liberals had a successful radio host, they would have some that made outlandish statements in order to help gain ratings. Crazy? Crazy enough to draw attention and an audience.
Maddow has made statements that are not true, but may not be crazy. I said that.
Soros is pulling the strings of lots of shadowy left-wing groups and has many Democrat politicians in their pocket.....
How you Liberals somehow think your poop doesn't smell just as bad as the other sides, I don't know. Somehow it is okay that Soros does it; it is horrid that the Koch Bros. do it.
Talk about crazy!
Quote: SanchoPanzaBecause he doesn't pretend to be 100 percent "objective." His critical analyses of more than a score of Politifact's erroneous conclusions without so much as demurral speaks loudly to his veracity.
Yup, and who claims to be 100% objective and not make mistakes over thousands of entries. No one at politifact. Besides they review and update their entries.
Based on your arguments, I'm starting to believe republicans are 3 x more wrong and in fact his study is just reporting a fact.
Quote: renoDonald Trump is a self-made man? No.
When Friedrich Drumpf immigrated from Germany to the United States at age 16 in 1885, he had literally nothing-- he earned a meager living as a barber. He eventually became a restauranteur in the wild frontier of the Yukon Territory. His son Fred, Jr. (born in 1905) got into New York real estate. By the time Donald was born in 1946, Fred Jr. was already extremely wealthy- he had a portfolio of 27,000 residential units in Brooklyn & Queens.
Well, if the question is, would Trump compare himself to a guy who worked himself up with nothing and no advantages, I would say, probably he would.
The thing is conservatives make a big deal about not awarding merit badges without merit. If they're willing to compare Trump to actual self-made people, then that's awarding someone something they don't deserve.
I'd never say Trump hasn't all the vestiges of success and or that he worked for a good portion of it (AFAIK) but it's comparing boy scout badges to war decorations to call him self-made like some of these other people.
Quote: renoIf my dad owned 27,000 houses & apartments, would you tell me that I was born into wealth? Would you refer to me as middle class?
Apologies in advance, I have tried to keep up with the posts here, this topic, failed miserably.
I'm still back at at 'blowjobs in the Whitehouse" or some similar point.
Don't remember which side was making which point. Who was winning debate, or who was losing.
I want a President,
I want a President that heard my voice,
just a little voice out here in the outskirts,
not a President that agreed with me,
Not a president that followed the polls,
Not a president that was part of the financial game that DC so often represents,
just a President that, thru all the artificial fog, heard my voice.
I don't ask that the next POTUS agree with me.
I hope the next POTUS is a rare specimen, a rare beast, maybe nearly extinct, that actually has the best interests of this nation above their own, and above their Party's.
And let's face it, with China closing in to regain it's previously held, they say rightful, position as leader of the world, this is not going to be an easy job/task/calling.
But I'm an optimist. I think you have to be an optimist, or fatalist, or shoot yourself-ist.
I am optimistic, I choose to be optimistic.
I am not a Clinton Fan, I am not a Trump fan. The USA needs better than either. We will get what we earn, maybe. You got any clue as to how you can make a teeny tiny difference? I think you do, I choose to be an optimist.
