Fears of a second civil war grow among democrat & republican pundits

[JustinCharge 2,397]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

Huh. That is not at all how I remember it. I was working in TV media at that time, and there was no lack of criticism directed toward Clinton and the dotcom bubble crashing. You guys have bought in way too hard on your media narratives, claiming that the monolithic "media" is all in lockstep with each other, burying stories and propagandizing. It's mostly garbage. But I won't convince you otherwise, so carry on. I just wanted to point out that this post of yours doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I remember it well.  There was a complete and utter lack of criticism of Bill Clinton.  The media muddled the entire timeline to the point where if you ask a democrat today, they will the dotcom crash happened under Bush.  Just ask some democrats.  The ones that tell you it happened under Bush, tell them it was under Clinton.  Make sure they don't know your political alignment at all when you do.  They will attack you.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

Huh. That is not at all how I remember it. I was working in TV media at that time, and there was no lack of criticism directed toward Clinton and the dotcom bubble crashing. You guys have bought in way too hard on your media narratives, claiming that the monolithic "media" is all in lockstep with each other, burying stories and propagandizing. It's mostly garbage. But I won't convince you otherwise, so carry on. I just wanted to point out that this post of yours doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

This post is gold. I spent 30 years in newsrooms, by the way. 

[Fnord 2,056]

1 minute ago, JustinCharge said:

I remember it well.  There was a complete and utter lack of criticism of Bill Clinton.  The media muddled the entire timeline to the point where if you ask a democrat today, they will the dotcom crash happened under Bush.  Just ask some democrats.  The ones that tell you it happened under Bush, tell them it was under Clinton.  Make sure they don't know your political alignment at all when you do.  They will attack you.

I'll pass, but thanks for the tip. Frankly I don't know anyone of any political ideology that gives 2 sh!ts anymore about the dotcom bubble. There's plenty more to pin on Clinton and W.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

You don't have to believe me.  The media STILL lies about the dotcom crash.  Look at the wikipedia page for Bill Clinton.  Not even a mention of the dotcom crash under his second term.  The only mention of the economy is:

Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history.^[

Clinton also oversaw a boom of the U.S. economy. Under Clinton, the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

 

You can't sit here with a straight face and push credentials at me like "oh I've been in the media 30 years" "I worked in the press" "trust me". And then we look at wikipedia and it outright lies (by omission) and does not mention the dotcom crash.

[nobody 2,570]

Wikipedia is media?  Shìt, man, Clinton's people probably curate that page.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

Just now, Fnord said:

I'll pass, but thanks for the tip. Frankly I don't know anyone of any political ideology that gives 2 sh!ts anymore about the dotcom bubble. There's plenty more to pin on Clinton and W.

Lies matter.  Maybe you don't WANT anyone to give a sh!t because it makes you (and the democrats) look bad.  But lies matter.

But if they don't matter, hey, let's just also erase anything bad that happened under republicans too.  Let's just say no one gives a sh!t about any of it.  Right? 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

Just now, nobody said:

Wikipedia is media?  Shìt, man, Clinton's people probably curate that page.

I would welcome other biographical references to Bill Clinton's 2 terms if you wish.  Wikipedia is culturally important as a lot of people use it an encyclopedia of choice.

[nobody 2,570]

You should really be pinning the housing bubble on Clinton.  Glass-Steagall was under his watch.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

2 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

I remember it well.  There was a complete and utter lack of criticism of Bill Clinton.  The media muddled the entire timeline to the point where if you ask a democrat today, they will the dotcom crash happened under Bush.  Just ask some democrats.  The ones that tell you it happened under Bush, tell them it was under Clinton.  Make sure they don't know your political alignment at all when you do.  They will attack you.

Evidentally you have dementia, because Bush wasn't even a presidential candidate when it started and Clinton took a total media beating, for that and dating back to his infidelity before he was elected, but the star-struck voters put him in office anyway, seduced by his sax-playing, twinkly-eyed charm. It was disgusting. So was Obama's election, but at least the man had class and didn't taint the office with something along the lines of Clownzo's toxicity. 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

Just now, Rusty Syringes said:

Evidentally you have dementia, because Bush wasn't even a presidential candidate when it started and Clinton took a total media beating, for that and dating back to his infidelity before he was elected, but the star-struck voters put him in office anyway, seduced by his sax-playing, twinkly-eyed charm. It was disgusting. So was Obama's election, but at least the man had class and didn't taint the office with something along the lines of Clownzo's toxicity. 

Hey, look.  I don't need to hear your arguments any longer.  You pushed your credentials across the table and said 'you have 30 years experience in newsrooms'. 

[Fnord 2,056]

1 minute ago, JustinCharge said:

Lies matter.  Maybe you don't WANT anyone to give a sh!t because it makes you (and the democrats) look bad.  But lies matter.

But if they don't matter, hey, let's just also erase anything bad that happened under republicans too.  Let's just say no one gives a sh!t about any of it.  Right? 

Oh FFS. You using a fuking Wikipedia page as evidence of some giant "media" conspiracy designed to remove blame from Bill Clinton for the dotcom bubble is absurd. You're right, lies DO matter. So how is it that you seem to be able to gloss over the tens of thousands of verifiable lies told by our disgraced outgoing president? Find some consistency and nuance here. I'm not trying to paint with giant brush strokes here, you are. I'm not here blindly supporting anything; that's you. I'm not defending anything regarding Bill Clinton or democrats. I'm just telling you that I was in TV media, and I saw what I saw. I couldn't possibly care less about you believing it, I'm just pointing it out for anyone that may happen to not be drinking the same kool-aid that you're drowning yourself in. FACTS matter. And you are not a strict adherent to them.

[Fnord 2,056]

5 minutes ago, nobody said:

You should really be pinning the housing bubble on Clinton.  Glass-Steagall was under his watch.

Yes! Repealing this was a far bigger SNAFU than the dotcom. Clinton was really the president that flipped the corporate script on the Republicans. Looking back, he was a pretty sh!tty president. Unfortunately, they just seem to be getting worse. Biden will reverse that trend in the short term, as he will be better than Trump. But I'm not getting my hopes up for the long term.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

Just now, Fnord said:

Oh FFS. You using a fuking Wikipedia page as evidence of some giant "media" conspiracy designed to remove blame from Bill Clinton for the dotcom bubble is absurd. You're right, lies DO matter. So how is it that you seem to be able to gloss over the tens of thousands of verifiable lies told by our disgraced outgoing president? Find some consistency and nuance here. I'm not trying to paint with giant brush strokes here, you are. I'm not here blindly supporting anything; that's you. I'm not defending anything regarding Bill Clinton or democrats. I'm just telling you that I was in TV media, and I saw what I saw. I couldn't possibly care less about you believing it, I'm just pointing it out for anyone that may happen to not be drinking the same kool-aid that you're drowning yourself in. FACTS matter. And you are not a strict adherent to them.

Holy crap.  Lies of omission from YOU as well.  I already said if you have other biographical references common people use to make decisions that criticize Clinton for the dotcom crash, please present them.  You ignore it and go straight into outright lying.  Stop the lies.  You and Rusty can present evidence that Clinton was under this heavy criticism for the dotcom crash or tkae your 30 years of newsroom credentials and go home. lol.  Wow.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

Yes! Repealing this was a far bigger SNAFU than the dotcom. Clinton was really the president that flipped the corporate script on the Republicans. Looking back, he was a pretty sh!tty president. Unfortunately, they just seem to be getting worse. Biden will reverse that trend in the short term, as he will be better than Trump. But I'm not getting my hopes up for the long term.

And now more lies.  Instead of proving anything i said was wrong, you are misdirecting to a valuation of the dotcom as a news event itself.  LOLOLOL

[JustinCharge 2,397]

Take the L Fnord and Rusty.  Just take the L.

[shorepatrol 1,870]

17 minutes ago, Rusty Syringes said:

 I spent 30 years in newsrooms, by the way. 

Now I get it 

[Fnord 2,056]

1 minute ago, JustinCharge said:

Holy crap.  Lies of omission from YOU as well.  I already said if you have other biographical references common people use to make decisions that criticize Clinton for the dotcom crash, please present them.  You ignore it and go straight into outright lying.  Stop the lies.  You and Rusty can present evidence that Clinton was under this heavy criticism for the dotcom crash or tkae your 30 years of newsroom credentials and go home. lol.  Wow.

What exactly am I lying about? And again, I don't care about presenting facts about this to you. Your mind is made up no matter what I say.

[Fnord 2,056]

Just now, JustinCharge said:

And now more lies.  Instead of proving anything i said was wrong, you are misdirecting to a valuation of the dotcom as a news event itself.  LOLOLOL

Again, what am I lying about here? You disagreeing is not equivalent to me lying.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

Just now, Fnord said:

What exactly am I lying about? And again, I don't care about presenting facts about this to you. Your mind is made up no matter what I say.

Uh, you just lied that I focus solely on wiki.  I literally said a few minutes before your post that if you want to link OTHER biographies in common use by the people, feel free to do so.  You did a lie of omission by pretending I didn't say that.  In fact, you lied about that twice now.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Again, what am I lying about here? You disagreeing is not equivalent to me lying.

Lies of omission is lying.  Unless you are blind?  Did you not see that I said please bring in other biographies or look for other biographies in common use that criticize him for the dotcom crash?  All you need to do is say "yes I saw that, I lied about you, i'm sorry"

[JustinCharge 2,397]

Typical liberals.  Lies lies lies, pushing credentials at you, and utter nonsense. 

[Fnord 2,056]

9 minutes ago, Fnord said:

1 minute ago, JustinCharge said:

Uh, you just lied that I focus solely on wiki.  I literally said a few minutes before your post that if you want to link OTHER biographies in common use by the people, feel free to do so.  You did a lie of omission by pretending I didn't say that.  In fact, you lied about that twice now.

You using a fuking Wikipedia page as evidence of some giant "media" conspiracy designed to remove blame from Bill Clinton for the dotcom bubble is absurd. 

Where here do I say you focus solely on Wiki? I call it absurd, as Wikipedia is not the "media." No lies. 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

6 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Again, what am I lying about here? You disagreeing is not equivalent to me lying.

What's also remarkable about this post is Fnord is uneducated on the concept of lies of omission, which is, you know, exactly the sort of lie the media gets criticized for.  The media gives a fact, its not often wrong.  The lie is in the facts it does not offer.  The media then defends the lie of omission by saying "no one cares".   Fnord is sparklingly unaware.  He probably has no idea how corrupt and evil he sounds.  He doesn't understand how corrosive it is.  Probably why the left doesn't understand why the right would go to civil war to fight them.

[Fnord 2,056]

5 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

Lies of omission is lying.  Unless you are blind?  Did you not see that I said please bring in other biographies or look for other biographies in common use that criticize him for the dotcom crash?  All you need to do is say "yes I saw that, I lied about you, i'm sorry"

Did you not see where I'm not going to present facts to you that won't matter at all?

I'll say this: I saw your posts, and I am sorry. Sorry that I engaged you about this. I usually enjoy conversing with you, as you present viewpoints that are pretty much in complete contradiction to my life experience. I find that interesting and even though we are opposites, you engage with good faith and aren't a giant pr!ck . We can let this go now, it's a waste of both of our time. I just don't appreciate being called a liar unless I'm actually lying about something.

[Fnord 2,056]

2 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

What's also remarkable about this post is Fnord is uneducated on the concept of lies of omission, which is, you know, exactly the sort of lie the media gets criticized for.  The media gives a fact, its not often wrong.  The lie is in the facts it does not offer.  The media then defends the lie of omission by saying "no one cares".   Fnord is sparklingly unaware.  He probably has no idea how corrupt and evil he sounds.

Gotta say, I find it absolutely awesome that you think I sound corrupt and evil. 

BWAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!

[Utilit99 4,099]

Just now, Fnord said:

Gotta say, I find it absolutely awesome that you think I sound corrupt and evil. 

BWAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!

Why?

[JustinCharge 2,397]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

Did you not see where I'm not going to present facts to you that won't matter at all?

I'll say this: I saw your posts, and I am sorry. Sorry that I engaged you about this. I usually enjoy conversing with you, as you present viewpoints that are pretty much in complete contradiction to my life experience. I find that interesting and even though we are opposites, you engage with good faith and aren't a giant pr!ck . We can let this go now, it's a waste of both of our time. I just don't appreciate being called a liar unless I'm actually lying about something.

Lies of omission are lies.  and you most certainly omitted the fact that I asked for other references to try to smack me by referencing wiki. 

[Rusty Syringes 478]

21 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

Hey, look.  I don't need to hear your arguments any longer.  You pushed your credentials across the table and said 'you have 30 years experience in newsrooms'. 

Yeah, as an unbiased journalist working quietly  with mostly conservative opinions in newsrooms with conservative editorialists. But I don't have a care in the world for a dismissive view of me from a delusional message-board journeyman who believes civil war is upon us and feels the need to stand on a virtual street corner and spew misguided prophecies upon every passerby. I'll bet this is just one of myriad forums in which you do this, and whatever family you have is exhausted from it. It must be disheartening that few, if any, listen to you, but you soldier on because it's all you have to make up for your childhood shortcomings and dysfunction. But by all means carry on if it brings you some morsel of comfort.

 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

The ENTIRE thesis of Trump communicating via twitter directly to the people is that the entire right wing of the United States believes the media will filter what he says and commit lies of omission to block out truth.  To sit here and say that is no big deal is to have been asleep for the past 4 years.

[nobody 2,570]

28 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

I would welcome other biographical references to Bill Clinton's 2 terms if you wish.  Wikipedia is culturally important as a lot of people use it an encyclopedia of choice.

You're completely reframing the discussion.  You said the media never went after clinton for the dot com bubble.  Then you brought up a current Wikipedia article as proof.  First of all, wikipedia didn't even exist during the dot com crash.  Second it's not the media in the context in which you used it.  Third, where would anyone find current news articles shìtting on Clinton for the dot com bust?  It happened 20 years ago.   Or are you complaining that history books aren't bïtching about Clinton's involvement in the dot com crash enough?  This whole line of reasoning is bizarre.

[shorepatrol 1,870]

25 minutes ago, Rusty Syringes said:

Evidentally you have dementia, because Bush wasn't even a presidential candidate when it started and Clinton took a total media beating, for that and dating back to his infidelity before he was elected, but the star-struck voters put him in office anyway, seduced by his sax-playing, twinkly-eyed charm. It was disgusting. So was Obama's election, but at least the man had class and didn't taint the office with something along the lines of Clownzo's toxicity. 

Obama had class and didn't taint the office? Now that's focking gold. 

[nobody 2,570]

3 minutes ago, shorepatrol said:

Obama had class and didn't taint the office? Now that's focking gold. 

Obama is a sociopath.  I've never seen a guy so adept at lying to people and so premeditated in his lies.  That's why people say he had class.  I guess people just want to be told what they want to hear whether it's true or not.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

2 minutes ago, shorepatrol said:

Obama had class and didn't taint the office? Now that's focking gold. 

Obama and G.W. Classy guys with no sex scandals. Trump and Clinton? Not so much. The Clintons were just gross. Obama was funny and classy, a guy you could drink a beer with. Didn't care for his policies. Didn't care for Bush and his war, but I like the guy.  Erase the lines and focus on the man. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,966]

Ha! Rusty the newsman and this FNord joker claiming Clinton caught any grief for his economic failings. Billy boy was warned by his own appointed chairperson to the CFTC , Brooksley Born, in front of congress, that the OTC derivatives market better start being regulated or there was going to be a massive crash in the near future. What did Clinton do? Ordered her into his office and dressed her down and she resigned shortly thereafter. Newsboy Rusty doesn’t even know what I’m talking about. Yet you’ll never hear a word about Clinton’s roll in the economic crash of 2008, even though he had been warned in front of the world that it would happen. He didn’t give a shite. He only cared about what happened on his watch and making sure the money men would be ok because he was going to need their money in the future. And he got it.  Rusty must have been working the personal ad pages back then if he thinks Clinton caught any grief like he should have.  Never mind his bailout of Mexico. Which was just cover for covering bad bets made by American and international banks. Again, Rusty or FNord have no clue.  No one told them. 

[shorepatrol 1,870]

16 minutes ago, Rusty Syringes said:

Obama and G.W. Classy guys with no sex scandals. Trump and Clinton? Not so much. The Clintons were just gross. Obama was funny and classy, a guy you could drink a beer with. Didn't care for his policies. Didn't care for Bush and his war, but I like the guy.  Erase the lines and focus on the man. 

You should really take your own advice. 

[Fnord 2,056]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Ha! Rusty the newsman and this FNord joker claiming Clinton caught any grief for his economic failings. Billy boy was warned by his own appointed chairperson to the CFTC , Brooksley Born, in front of congress, that the OTC derivatives market better start being regulated or there was going to be a massive crash in the near future. What did Clinton do? Ordered her into his office and dressed her down and she resigned shortly thereafter. Newsboy Rusty doesn’t even know what I’m talking about. Yet you’ll never hear a word about Clinton’s roll in the economic crash of 2008, even though he had been warned in front of the world that it would happen. He didn’t give a shite. He only cared about what happened on his watch and making sure the money men would be ok because he was going to need their money in the future. And he got it.  Rusty must have been working the personal ad pages back then if he thinks Clinton caught any grief like he should have.  Never mind his bailout of Mexico. Which was just cover for covering bad bets made by American and international banks. Again, Rusty or FNord have no clue.  No one told them. 

 

41 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Yes! Repealing this was a far bigger SNAFU than the dotcom. Clinton was really the president that flipped the corporate script on the Republicans. Looking back, he was a pretty sh!tty president. 

I just fully acknowledged Clinton's role in the 2008 crash. It's right here on this page. Put some different posters in your little story. I'm not going to defend Bill Clinton or democrats, no matter how badly your predetermined, prejudiced narrative requires it.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,966]

7 minutes ago, Fnord said:

 

I just fully acknowledged Clinton's role in the 2008 crash. It's right here on this page. Put some different posters in your little story. I'm not going to defend Bill Clinton or democrats, no matter how badly your predetermined, prejudiced narrative requires it.

My bad. Was waiting for my car when I read that part of the thread. Conflated you with Rusty the newsboy.  

[JustinCharge 2,397]

59 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Did you not see where I'm not going to present facts to you that won't matter at all?

I'll say this: I saw your posts, and I am sorry. Sorry that I engaged you about this. I usually enjoy conversing with you, as you present viewpoints that are pretty much in complete contradiction to my life experience. I find that interesting and even though we are opposites, you engage with good faith and aren't a giant pr!ck . We can let this go now, it's a waste of both of our time. I just don't appreciate being called a liar unless I'm actually lying about something.

Also, this post is extremely manipulating and evil.  This is a pro guilt trip.  It is something a sociopath would absolutely write.  Trying to appeal to emotion, as if he is my bestest best friend ever and he enjoys talking with me.  Not the place nor the time for that sort of stuff.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/anger-conservative-pollster-rasmussen-appears-232945555.html

The media is apparently saying Rasmussen is Joseph Stalin and that Rasmussen backs Pence overturning the election result on Jan 6th.  Then the media seems to go into a lot of "reporting" on gossip as to what Trump or Pence or anyone says behind the scenes, as if it is fact.  Niiiiiiiiiiiiiice.  They even apply the label "Internet Supervillain" to one guy.  Whatever.

 

Anger as conservative pollster Rasmussen appears to back overturning election result
Josh Marcus
Tue, December 29, 2020, 3:29 PM PST

Legal experts and commentators are crying foul after Rasmussen Reports, a conservative-leaning polling firm, quoted a line attributed to Joseph Stalin and linked to right-wing commentary arguing vice president Mike Pence could still try to overturn the legitimate presidential election results.

On Sunday, Rasmussen Reports, once described as the president’s “favourite pollster,” tweeted out a thread from conservative blogger, gaming media executive, and self-described “internet supervillain” Alexander Macris. It detailed a dubious theory about how the vice president, who will ceremonially certify the election results before a joint session of Congress on 6 January, could overturn the process and give the Trump administration a win.

It began with a quote, likely apocryphal, from Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, which read, “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”

Come January 6th:

(Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. - Stalin)

"Come January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence will be presented with the sealed certificates containing the ballots of the presidential electors.

1/4

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) December 27, 2020

And it went on to outline an election theory experts said was bogus, but which has been gaining traction in conservative circles since the election.

“The Vice President is not supposed to control the outcome of the process for counting the electoral votes from the states,” Edward Foley, a law professor at the Ohio State University, told The Hill. "The Vice President chairs the joint session, but does not decide what electoral votes to count.”

The president, upon learning of Mr Pence’s role, reportedly pushed for him to do something to postpone the inevitable. But the Washington Post reported that Mr Pence has already told House Republicans and others pushing to overturn the results that he plans to honour his constitutional duty and won’t create any unnecessary drama. He is reportedly planning an overseas trip soon after.

Despite his assurances, commentators online were dismayed that the Rasmussen post invoked the notorious dictator and outlined how to overturn the election.

“Rasmussen Reports is telling Mike Pence to take some tips from Josef Stalin on how to steal an election,” wrote Matthew Sheffield, a self-described “former conservative” writer. “This is the absolute state of American conservatism.”

[JustinCharge 2,397]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-pence-aide-turned-trump-204933792.html

I stopped reading when the guy mentioned the Christmas day bombing as a rebuke of Trump being a law and order president lol.

Ex-Pence aide turned Trump critic ‘very concerned’ about Jan 6 violence
Gustaf Kilander
Tue, December 29, 2020, 12:49 PM PST

Olivia Troye, former homeland security and counterterrorism adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, told MSNBC that she was "very concerned that there will be violence on January 6th because the President himself is encouraging it".

January 6th is the date when Congress is due to certify President-elect Joe Biden's electoral college victory. The north Alabama congressman Mo Brooks told Fox News on Monday that "dozens" of Republican lawmakers intend to challenge the results despite the lack of evidence of voter fraud and support from their Congressional leadership.

Republican Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas filed a lawsuit against Mr Pence, who will oversee the certification process, in a Hail Mary attempt to disregard the rules regulating Congress' counting of electoral college votes and allowing Mr Pence to ignore Mr Biden's electors and only count Mr Trump's. The lawsuit is unlikely to be successful.

Speaking during an appearance on the cable news network on Monday, Ms Troye said of President Trump: "This is what he does. He tweets, he incites it, he gets his followers and supporters to behave in this manner and these people think they’re being patriotic because they’re supporting Donald Trump.”

Two establishments in downtown Washington DC popular with Trump supporters and the far-right group Proud Boys have already announced that they will be closed around January 6th out of concern for their staff and guests.

Hotel Harrington posted a statement on their Facebook page saying "While we cannot control what happens outside of the hotel, we are taking additional steps to protect the safety of our visitors, guests and employees.

Hotel Harrington will be closed January 4, 5 and 6." Harry's bar, located on the hotel's first floor, will be closed January 5 and 6. The hotel didn't specify why they were closing on those dates, but the last time Proud Boys and Trump supporters protested in DC, violent and chaotic scenes broke out across the capital, including right outside Harry's Bar.

Thousands of Trump supporters are expected to descend on Washington DC to protest the results. Mr Trump tweeted on Sunday: "See you in Washington, DC, on January 6th. Don’t miss it."

“In terms of his legacy, this is a President who calls himself the President of law and order and we have seen anything but that," Ms Troye said. "We had a bombing on Christmas Day,