2022 Midterm Elections

[Fnord 2,264]

7 hours ago, Voltaire said:

 

  

 

Dear God the tone deafness. Look in the mirror. Is Biden* not 10000x times worse than President Trump ever was accused of being or could possibly be? It is insane the level of obtuseness on display with this post.

Jesus man. Before I get into the weeds with you, congrats on your impending return to the states. 

Now, WTF are you smoking?? If Trump would have had a D behind his name and Republicans had the chance, they would have impeached him more than twice. I'll concede that Trump had some policy wins if you're a conservative, but any Republican president would have had the same successes without the other BS and divisiveness, and your party would still have the presidency. If you can't understand that Trump gives zero fukks about anything or anyone other than himself, I question not just your intelligence, but your moral fiber as well.

[craftsman 1,045]

5 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Jesus man. Before I get into the weeds with you, congrats on your impending return to the states. 

Now, WTF are you smoking?? If Trump would have had a D behind his name and Republicans had the chance, they would have impeached him more than twice. I'll concede that Trump had some policy wins if you're a conservative, but any Republican president would have had the same successes without the other BS and divisiveness, and your party would still have the presidency. If you can't understand that Trump gives zero fukks about anything or anyone other than himself, I question not just your intelligence, but your moral fiber as well.

Liberals...

 

[KSB2424 3,148]

23 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Where is the hypocrisy?

 

I don’t think he understands what the word means.

[craftsman 1,045]

 

The concession of Democratic challenger Adam Frisch to incumbent Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., in their extremely close race for Boebert's U.S. House seat is casting new light on the opinions of liberal pundits who gloated over what seemed to them to be her impending loss.

By the time Frisch had conceded defeat to Boebert towards the end of a vote count that took about a week and a half to finish, leftist pundits had littered Twitter and cable news networks with gleeful and celebratory statements that she wouldn’t make it back to Congress for a second term. 

By the end of the race, Boebert acquired a razor-thin lead over Frisch, the former Aspen City Council member. Though the contest ended up being so close that it will likely require a recount according to Colorado state law, Frisch conceded, claiming in a statement on his Facebook page, "The likelihood of this recount changing more than a handful of votes is very small."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-boeberts-apparent-midterm-victory-makes-liberal-pundits-eat-their-words

[Hardcore troubadour 15,410]

2 minutes ago, craftsman said:

 

The concession of Democratic challenger Adam Frisch to incumbent Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., in their extremely close race for Boebert's U.S. House seat is casting new light on the opinions of liberal pundits who gloated over what seemed to them to be her impending loss.

By the time Frisch had conceded defeat to Boebert towards the end of a vote count that took about a week and a half to finish, leftist pundits had littered Twitter and cable news networks with gleeful and celebratory statements that she wouldn’t make it back to Congress for a second term. 

By the end of the race, Boebert acquired a razor-thin lead over Frisch, the former Aspen City Council member. Though the contest ended up being so close that it will likely require a recount according to Colorado state law, Frisch conceded, claiming in a statement on his Facebook page, "The likelihood of this recount changing more than a handful of votes is very small."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-boeberts-apparent-midterm-victory-makes-liberal-pundits-eat-their-words

A week and a half to count votes in one congressional district is ridiculous, no matter who wins. And the left wonders why normal people have lost confidence in our elections being accurate.

[Raven Fan 362]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

A week and a half to count votes in one congressional district is ridiculous, no matter who wins. And the left wonders why normal people have lost confidence in our elections being accurate.

And the left also wonders why cultist morons think this just started to happen in 2020...oh that's right, because that's when your master told you it started to happen.

SAD

[craftsman 1,045]

20 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

A week and a half to count votes in one congressional district is ridiculous, no matter who wins. And the left wonders why normal people have lost confidence in our elections being accurate.

Seriously, the left has been working hard to normalize a another shltty government influenced/run process. 

[Reality 3,121]

Are these mf'ers still counting ballots?

My God.

[craftsman 1,045]

17 minutes ago, Reality said:

Are these mf'ers still counting ballots?

My God.

Yeah, they can't seem to figure out how to fix one easy system, yet they want to be in charge of the country on all levels. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,410]

6 minutes ago, Reality said:

Are these mf'ers still counting ballots?

My God.

Seems to be a blue state thing predominantly.  

[TimHauck 2,856]

8 hours ago, nobody said:

If I'm ever on trial, I definitely want you on the jury.  

So you think he stole it?

[nobody 2,667]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

So you think he stole it?

Of course

[Voltaire 5,315]

15 hours ago, Fnord said:

Jesus man. Before I get into the weeds with you, congrats on your impending return to the states. 

Now, WTF are you smoking?? If Trump would have had a D behind his name and Republicans had the chance, they would have impeached him more than twice. I'll concede that Trump had some policy wins if you're a conservative, but any Republican president would have had the same successes without the other BS and divisiveness, and your party would still have the presidency. If you can't understand that Trump gives zero fukks about anything or anyone other than himself, I question not just your intelligence, but your moral fiber as well.

What you claim President Trump would do if he became president, Let me retrieve that for you [[[I'll couch that by saying if Trump is back in power, the DOJ will be weaponized and Biden will be indicted]]]  needs pointing out that he never did last time. President Trump's "Lock Her Up" rhetoric was distasteful because we don't actually lock up our political opponents in the US. you'll notice that not only was Hillary never locked up, there wasn't an attempt to lift a finger.

That standard held pretty much fully intact until Biden* came along. We are already up to our necks in fully weaponized DOJ brought about exponential scores of magnitude of Biden* right now and you worry about President Trump who didn't do it last time doing it now. It wasn't Trump who broke the system and brought about the tribunals. Worry about weaponizing the DOJ? Unreal. That's entirely 100.00000% what the Democrats' have already been doing this entire time at warp speed since they came to power two years ago.

Also, I agree that I don't want things to get personal. We are good.  I respect you, I think you're a great contributor and credit to your side around here. Most all the time, until yesterday.  I mean, how are we concerned or hypothesizing about what Trump 2.0 may potentially do (weaponize the DOJ) when that exact thing is already happening right now, at a pace exponentially worse than it has ever been conducted previously?

[TimHauck 2,856]

1 hour ago, nobody said:

Of course

Then why would you say this as if this alleged thought was not believable. 
 

On 11/18/2022 at 7:34 PM, nobody said:

Well according to Tim the money that was supposedly going to republicans was stolen by one of the execs.

 

[Raven Fan 362]

1 hour ago, Voltaire said:

What you claim President Trump would do if he became president, Let me retrieve that for you [[[I'll couch that by saying if Trump is back in power, the DOJ will be weaponized and Biden will be indicted]]]  needs pointing out that he never did last time. President Trump's "Lock Her Up" rhetoric was distasteful because we don't actually lock up our political opponents in the US. you'll notice that not only was Hillary never locked up, there wasn't an attempt to lift a finger.

That standard held pretty much fully intact until Biden* came along. We are already up to our necks in fully weaponized DOJ brought about exponential scores of magnitude of Biden* right now and you worry about President Trump who didn't do it last time doing it now. It wasn't Trump who broke the system and brought about the tribunals. Worry about weaponizing the DOJ? Unreal. That's entirely 100.00000% what the Democrats' have already been doing this entire time at warp speed since they came to power two years ago.

Also, I agree that I don't want things to get personal. We are good.  I respect you, I think you're a great contributor and credit to your side around here. Most all the time, until yesterday.  I mean, how are we concerned or hypothesizing about what Trump 2.0 may potentially do (weaponize the DOJ) when that exact thing is already happening right now, at a pace exponentially worse than it has ever been conducted previously?

His low IQ rubes chanting lock her up wasn't evidence of Trump weaponizing the DOJ?  How about the failed Durham investigation?  Trump also wanted his DOJ to overturn the fair results of an election.

But cutlist are mad because Trump is investigated for actually breaking the law like tampering with state elections by threatening secretaries of states and asking for votes.  How about when he stole classified government documents and left them scattered about this tacky motel?

You people are simply so out of touch with normal people it's incredible. 

[dogcows 1,030]

4 hours ago, Raven Fan said:

His low IQ rubes chanting lock her up wasn't evidence of Trump weaponizing the DOJ?  How about the failed Durham investigation?  Trump also wanted his DOJ to overturn the fair results of an election.

But cutlist are mad because Trump is investigated for actually breaking the law like tampering with state elections by threatening secretaries of states and asking for votes.  How about when he stole classified government documents and left them scattered about this tacky motel?

You people are simply so out of touch with normal people it's incredible. 

Mueller report was from Republicans. Jan 6 was supposed to be a fully independent commission, but the GOP blocked it. It has focused on testimony from Trump’s inner circle and other Republicans. It’s been pretty fair so far. The goal should be to prevent another Jan 6, whether or not it includes criminal charges against Trump.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,410]

“Meuller report was from republicans “.  These people still don’t get it. Whatever. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t smash him in the face with reality. The Jan 6 committee  was bi-partisan too.  

[Raven Fan 362]

14 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

“Meuller report was from republicans “.  These people still don’t get it. Whatever. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t smash him in the face with reality. The Jan 6 committee  was bi-partisan too.  

The Mueller report wasn't brought by republicans?  Did Hillary do some kind of Mission Impossible faceswap nitwit?

And the January 6th committee was going to be equal parts D and R, but the moron Rs said nope.  We can't be seen investigating the master of the deplorables.  They might get mad at us and try to kill us again.

Bizzaro world you live in boyo.   Or very low IQ, no education world.  But definitely one of those.

SAD

[Masshole 642]

Conservatism vs liberalism:   

 

[Fnord 2,264]

On 11/20/2022 at 4:09 AM, Voltaire said:

What you claim President Trump would do if he became president, Let me retrieve that for you [[[I'll couch that by saying if Trump is back in power, the DOJ will be weaponized and Biden will be indicted]]]  needs pointing out that he never did last time. President Trump's "Lock Her Up" rhetoric was distasteful because we don't actually lock up our political opponents in the US. you'll notice that not only was Hillary never locked up, there wasn't an attempt to lift a finger.

That standard held pretty much fully intact until Biden* came along. We are already up to our necks in fully weaponized DOJ brought about exponential scores of magnitude of Biden* right now and you worry about President Trump who didn't do it last time doing it now. It wasn't Trump who broke the system and brought about the tribunals. Worry about weaponizing the DOJ? Unreal. That's entirely 100.00000% what the Democrats' have already been doing this entire time at warp speed since they came to power two years ago.

Also, I agree that I don't want things to get personal. We are good.  I respect you, I think you're a great contributor and credit to your side around here. Most all the time, until yesterday.  I mean, how are we concerned or hypothesizing about what Trump 2.0 may potentially do (weaponize the DOJ) when that exact thing is already happening right now, at a pace exponentially worse than it has ever been conducted previously?

You saying that Trump never attempted to weaponize the DOJ shows me that the media sources you consume are not telling you the truth. At least not the whole truth. To wit:

Wapo-- Trump attempts to get DOJ to subpoena phone and electronic records of Dem Congressmen and reporters

The New York Times revealed Thursday night — and The Washington Post confirmed — that the Justice Department under Trump secretly subpoenaed the data of two prominent Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee: the panel’s top Democrat Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.) and Rep. Eric Swalwell (Calif.). Their committee was, at the time, probing Trump’s relationship with Russia, and the ostensible purpose of the requests was to find out if they or those around them were leaking information about the matter.

The news comes shortly after we learned of other highly unorthodox Justice Department efforts to obtain the data and phone records of reporters who scrutinized Trump. First it was Washington Post reporters. Then it was a CNN reporter. Then it was reporters from the Times.

In each case, we are only learning these things now because the Justice Department under now-President Biden has notified those involved. In the cases involving CNN and the Times, the Trump Justice Department actively fought to avoid the disclosures even to people within those organizations. Ditto Schiff and Swalwell.

So Biden actually does the right thing here and notifies the individuals of this activity, while Trump's DOJ actively tried to obfuscate.

 

Lots of good examples here

Since taking office President Trump has regularly called upon the Justice Department to investigate individuals he perceives as political opponents, especially his 2016 general election opponent Hillary Clinton, senior officials within the FBI, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Since his acquittal by the Senate in the impeachment trial, the president has exerted further political pressure on the department, including having expressed his displeasure at sentencing recommendations from prosecutors in the case against his associate Roger Stone — complaints that were apparently answered by Justice Department leadership’s intervention in the case, which was in turn praised by the president.

Troublingly, it appears that the Justice Department is allowing itself to be pressured by Trump’s demands. In November 2017, then–Attorney General Jeff Sessions informed members of Congress that he was considering appointing a second special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton’s alleged role in approving the sale of a uranium company to a Russian state company. In January 2018, after yet another round of tweets from Trump, the Daily Beast reported that Justice Department officials had agreed to take a “fresh look” at Clinton’s use of a private email server. Two years later, in January 2020, the department ended the investigation, conceding nothing of consequence was found.

Trump's DOJ re-opened an investigation into Hillary's email server. Spent two years and came up with nothin. Read that again.

NPR-- Trump tried to use the DOJ in his effort to overturn election, ex-DOJ officials said

This is an interesting transcript:

Justice Department officials detailed a sustained, baseless effort by Donald Trump to use their department as part of his campaign to overturn the 2020 election. 

We heard from former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who took over after Bill Barr resigned in the wake of the 2020 election, and two of Rosen's deputies. Trump was personally calling them and meeting with them basically on a daily basis, pushing a series of claims of election fraud. These DOJ officials didn't dismiss those claims out of hand. They took them in, shared them with the relevant U.S. attorneys who investigated them. But over and over again, they came up empty.

former Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue detailed a 90-minute call where he went through claim by claim with President Trump. He showed him and told him about the investigations with witnesses, with the FBI interviewing people, looking at all of these claims and telling him time and time again each one was false. 

Trump wanted to replace Rosen as attorney general with someone who would carry out his wishes. This was DOJ lawyer Jeff Clark. He was an environmental lawyer in the civil division who had nothing to do with these issues, but he did have connections to Trump allies in Congress. Clark met with the president in the Oval Office without justice bosses knowing about it, a clear violation of DOJ rules.

Everyone told Trump he was full of sh1t with his stolen election claims. So he tries to replace the AG (the new one, appointed after even Barr resigned on protest over Trump's behavior) with AN ENVIRONMENTAL LAWYER. Was an environmental lawyer qualified to be AG? Nope, but Clark would do whatever crazy sh1t Trump asked him to do. 

The Intercept-- HOW WILLIAM BARR IS WEAPONIZING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO HELP TRUMP WIN

Barr has violated numerous fundamental norms as attorney general, using his sweeping powers to carry out actions and judgments that are politically beneficial to the president’s reelection campaign. Many former Justice Department officials say Barr’s actions and public statements are increasingly aimed at helping Trump’s political interests and friends, leading to an unprecedented politicization of the department by the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

Specifically, the Justice Department has failed to pursue pending court cases that seek to stop discriminatory voting practices, including ones that happened in 2018, 2019, and 2020, and these or similar cases could come up before November, say former DOJ lawyers. It has abstained from taking legal action in cases of voter purges that occurred in Georgia and Ohio in both 2018 and 2019. Likewise, the DOJ has been missing in action in cases involving polling place reductions during this year’s primaries in Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Georgia. And it has failed to take action in cases stemming from too few — or error-prone — voting machines in minority neighborhoods.

Trump's DOJ FAILED TO TAKE ACTION IN CASES OF ERROR-PRONE VOTING MACHINES. And then conveniently:

“We will have to see whether Barr is prepared to implement what Trump wants, which appears to be harnessing law enforcement agencies to participate in an aggressive voter suppression effort,” former DOJ inspector general Michael Bromwich told me. “Neither Trump nor Barr has any legal authority over sheriffs, police departments, or state AGs, but Trump has now green-lighted rogue law enforcement elements around the country to undertake such efforts as voter suppression vigilantes. An attorney general who believed in the rule of law and democracy would come out four-square against such tactics.”

There's A LOT in this article.

The Atlantic-- Trump's DOJ was more dangerous than we knew

These new stories about the Trump DOJ do not qualitatively change the existing impression of a department that was weaponized for personal gain, run by unqualified and/or malevolent actors, and reoriented to political warfare. Under Jeff Sessions, the department aggressively undermined civil-rights protections and spearheaded a push to separate immigrant families at the southern border. When Sessions was finally defenestrated for, remarkably, being too politically independent, he was replaced by a wildly unqualified political hack, Matthew Whitaker. Whitaker was never formally nominated or the job, probably because he was unconfirmable, and was replaced by Barr. A formidable lawyer and former attorney general, Barr was clearly qualified, but also comfortable using the department for malign purposes, including misleading the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report and espousing bizarre conspiracy theories ahead of the election. Things could have been worse still. To Barr’s credit, and to the credit of Jeffrey Rosen, his interim successor who was the target of the internal coup, the Justice Department resisted Trump’s pressure to try to overturn the election after the fact.

And finally, a stalwart Conservative Institution, National Review

If Democrats were truly looking to “weaponize” the DOJ to improve their chances in 2024, or even 2022, this could well go down as the face-palm at Palm Beach. So I’m willing to take the White House at their word that President Biden was not party to the law-enforcement hit on his old 2020 rival, or at least not behind it. Maybe this was in fact the action of the Justice Department and FBI alone, “personally approved” by Merrick Garland. That doesn’t mean that it was the right or righteous call, or that Democrats inside the DOJ aren’t acting out of personal animus. That doesn’t mean that it was the wrong call. It does mean that ultimate transparency is in order. The AG took a step in that direction on Thursday, acknowledging his own involvement and moving to unseal the search warrant (you can find the gory details here) — while promising to release more information when “appropriate.” NR’s editorial makes the case for sunlight: If, as it will undoubtedly insist, the federal government had no choice but to take the action it did, it will presumably feel comfortable making that case before the American public. It should do so immediately. Transparency is the bare minimum that law enforcement can provide to reassure the public that it understands the delicate balance between enforcing the law and abusing its discretion. 

Please enlighten me how, in your words, Biden's "fully weaponized DOJ" has been worse than Trump's. I got a million more of these, but have already dumped way too much time into this project. Only for you, Volty. Very few of the other hornets around here would be worth half as much effort. Cheers.

ETA: This should not be construed as a defense of Biden or his DOJ, merely a refutation of the claims Voltaire was making. I don't know if the MAL raid was 100% legit. I just know I haven't seen compelling evidence that it wasn't.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,348]

lol, NPR, the intercept and the atlantic

great examples

I stand corrected, you have WAPO too 

[Fnord 2,264]

22 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

lol, NPR, the intercept and the atlantic

great examples

I stand corrected, you have WAPO too 

So what media outlets are telling the truth, then? Where do YOU go for news?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,348]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

So what media outlets are telling the truth, then? Where do YOU go for news?

I get everything from leftists websites no worry

 

[Voltaire 5,315]

30 minutes ago, Fnord said:

 

Please enlighten me how, in your words, Biden's "fully weaponized DOJ" has been worse than Trump's. I got a million more of these, but have already dumped way too much time into this project. Only for you, Volty. Very few of the other hornets around here would be worth half as much effort. Cheers.

 

I get sucked into these things every now and again myself. I guess the ball is in my court, we're both biting off more than we want to chew, but you already did your share.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,410]

I don’t go to a government funded and controlled source for my “news”. That would be incredibly stupid. I think the name for government controlled news is propaganda? Well, everywhere but in the US I guess. Lol. 

[Fnord 2,264]

Well I'd like to thank a couple of the hornets I was talking about for showing again that they truly are gobbling up ideological horsesh1t and then pretending they aren't "low information" dooshnozzles. Especially HT. Keep getting your intel from Tucker, he'll never steer you wrong!

[Fnord 2,264]

9 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

I get sucked into these things every now and again myself. I guess the ball is in my court, we're both biting off more than we want to chew, but you already did your share.

Don't worry about it. I'm not doing that again. If you got a couple articles,  I'll read em tho

[Hardcore troubadour 15,410]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Well I'd like to thank a couple of the hornets I was talking about for showing again that they truly are gobbling up ideological horsesh1t and then pretending they aren't "low information" dooshnozzles. Especially HT. Keep getting your intel from Tucker, he'll never steer you wrong!

He’s not perfect, but at least he’s not the government. And low information, as you call it, has to be better than bad information. Also, you should know,  the government lies all the time. HTH. 

[Fnord 2,264]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

He’s not perfect, but at least he’s not the government. And low information, as you call it, has to be better than bad information. 

Jesus Christ. Point to the part on the doll you're clutching where the big mean government touched you.

No one would disagree that there's a lot of corruption going on in every level of government, especially the politicians. But most of "government" is just a bunch of normal people with jobs to do. Let's stop pretending the whole thing needs to be torn down, huh? Besides, how many of you anti-government guys are collecting some form of benefits from the very entity you hold in such disdain? You're whiny fukin crybabies accusing everyone else of being a "Beta." What's that insulting word that you love to use unironically without realizing it perfectly describes you?

Cuck?

I feel slimy even using your dumbass terms.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,410]

16 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Jesus Christ. Point to the part on the doll you're clutching where the big mean government touched you.

No one would disagree that there's a lot of corruption going on in every level of government, especially the politicians. But most of "government" is just a bunch of normal people with jobs to do. Let's stop pretending the whole thing needs to be torn down, huh? Besides, how many of you anti-government guys are collecting some form of benefits from the very entity you hold in such disdain? You're whiny fukin crybabies accusing everyone else of being a "Beta." What's that insulting word that you love to use unironically without realizing it perfectly describes you?

Cuck?

I feel slimy even using your dumbass terms.

I’m not anti government. I’m anti bad government. But you keep corralling people in the pen that exists in your head. I guess it helps you make sense of things. 

[RLLD 4,230]

8 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I’m not anti government. I’m anti bad government. But you keep corralling people in the pen that exists in your head. I guess it helps you make sense of things. 

Government is a necessary evil. There is little "good" to government, and thus I prefer to see their involvement restricted as much as possible. 

[TheNewGirl 1,489]

AP finally called this R win in CA. 

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-california-veterans-sacramento-gavin-newsom-868cf922b642790bb63217d370070d50?fbclid=IwAR17eDMPW1A-HuUo9iBKSmeiwNMCUfXxG64jAOZxbXIC7eZQLA8eQrQeOnU

And yet, they can call other elections immediately or overnight. 

 

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

13 hours ago, Fnord said:

So what media outlets are telling the truth, then? Where do YOU go for news?

Just follow the trail to the most MAGA sites possible considering that is where he takes up residence. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,410]

13 hours ago, Fnord said:

So what media outlets are telling the truth, then? Where do YOU go for news?

All of them. They all lie. But not one controlled by the government, which is a lot of times the subject of the news I want. Why would I ask them? 

[OldMaid 2,130]

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

[RLLD 4,230]

44 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

Yeah, no kidding right? And he admits this openly.

The thing is that folks over at cnn and MSNBC etc do the same but pretend to be actual journalists

until taken to account for it, as with Maddie, who then has to admit it

[Fnord 2,264]

45 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

All of them. They all lie. But not one controlled by the government, which is a lot of times the subject of the news I want. Why would I ask them? 

You're essentially saying you believe whatever the hell you want, with complete disregard of anything else, because "they all lie." That definitely lines up with your posting content. Thanks!

[Hardcore troubadour 15,410]

Just now, Fnord said:

You're essentially saying you believe whatever the hell you want, with complete disregard of anything else, because "they all lie." That definitely lines up with your posting content. Thanks!

They all do lie. Disagree? It’s up to the reader to use their brain to figure out what part of what they say is true. Going to NPR for news about the government isn’t much different than going to the public relations rep for a company for news about them. You try too hard.  

[Fnord 2,264]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Yeah, no kidding right? And he admits this openly.

The thing is that folks over at cnn and MSNBC etc do the same but pretend to be actual journalists

until taken to account for it, as with Maddie, who then has to admit it

Why is it that Maddow hasn't been sued like Tucker? Why haven't the lawyers at MSNBC had to issue similar statements?

You can compare these two based on the rank partisanship they display, but not much else. You might not like or agree with her, but she is absolutely a journalist, and Tucker is not. She fact-checks and investigates. Tucker doesn't. She doesn't get sued for libel or slander. Tucker does. But I'm sure that's just luck or the liberal media's fault, and has nothing to do with what happens when you come from a place of factual evidence, as opposed to crooked hysteria and gaslighting.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,410]

Here’s an example: NPR and the leftist media have framed what’s going on in Ukraine as standing with democracy.  And some, many actually, people on Fox have said the same thing.  Well it’s not. Ukraine isn’t a democracy.  Never has been.  In a democracy, no one gets tossed out of office in a coup fomented by other countries.  And vanquished political opponents don’t have to flee the country for their lives. In a democracy, the guy leaving office gets a pension, a secret service detachment and a library. I know these things because they happened.  And do happen.  But if I just believed any of the media, including fox, I would think it is about standing with democracy. Because they all lie.