- Reaction score
- 21,842
- Points
- 1,260
He is running a 100% call Trump out campaign. I find it refreshing compared to the others who are trying to ignore his MULTIPLE legal woes.Just saw a Chris Christie ad. No punches pulled.
He is running a 100% call Trump out campaign. I find it refreshing compared to the others who are trying to ignore his MULTIPLE legal woes.Just saw a Chris Christie ad. No punches pulled.
CBC Frontburner had a pretty good podcast episode on him earlier this week.I'm gobsmacked. I thought that not withstanding his roots, he'd turned GOP. I'd never cared enough to check.
I guess times have changed.
Bob Dole, John Kerry, and John McCain were war heroes, but didn't get elected.
Governor DeSantis was awarded a Bronze Star with a V device for valor. But, it does not look like he will get in either.
I’m pretty sure that with everything else that’s happened in the years since the 2016 election, repeat draft dodging isn’t even noticeable or on the radar.Bone spurs. No one's mentioned bone spurs.
Childhood asthma and multiple education deferrals. No one's mentioned childhood asthma and multiple education defferalsBone spurs. No one's mentioned bone spurs.
Would definitely need multiple education referrals for the multiple people writing his exams…Childhood asthma and multiple education deferrals. No one's mentioned childhood asthma and multiple education defferals
I will look for the link shortly, but I was genuinely jaw dropped when I watched Rachel Maddow bluntly state to her viewers "We will not be showing any footage of this Trump event, because blah blah blah blah..."This is all done under the guise of justice but the true purpose is to damage Biden's leading opponent in the run up to the next election. That has been and continues to be the modus operandi of the corrupt establishment.
The MSM can't help themselves either, Rachel Maddow is suggesting the DOJ should drop the charges in exchange for Trump pulling out of the 2024 race.
I will look for the link shortly, but I was genuinely jaw dropped when I watched Rachel Maddow bluntly state to her viewers "We will not be showing any footage of this Trump event, because blah blah blah blah..."
And all of the reasons given (the blah blah blah) was essentially an opinion driven narrative that clearly favoured one side of the political establishment over the other.
She is a self-described journalist who should be showing her viewers as much raw, unedited, non-narrated material as possible so the viewers themselves can make up their own minds.
When she boldly stated "We arent going to bother showing you this because we benefit from this other guy a lot more..." it hit me hard because a 'news organisation' was openly admitting to censoring political news, while at the same time defending it
Journalists report on the news and commentators comment on the news.
Yes I did, hence my comment.Ok, but did you read the indictment?
The Dems had a decent candidate with military service, but they pushed her out of the party for not being woke enough.I like what a furious President Eisenhower said: "I am about ready to go put my uniform on".
Ron DeSantis is the only military veteran in either party I can think of who is being considered, or potentially may be considered, for Commander in Chief.
As an historical footnote, every Commander in Chief since FDR and before Bill Clinton was a military veteran.
In the 2024 Presidential race, does military service still matter?
Excellent, then I promise to do my best to remember that and stop asking. Nice that someone is actually willing to take the time to do it.Yes I did, hence my comment.
The Dems had a decent candidate with military service, but they pushed her out of the party for not being woke enough.
The Dems had a decent candidate with military service, but they pushed her out of the party for not being woke enough.
There is only one way to reset this and that is a Trump POTUS 47 followed by a house cleaning of epic proportions, then resignation after two or three years into the term and handover to the VP (hopefully Tulsi Gabbard) to finish the term and run for a second.
Gabbard proves the Horseshoe Theory of politics. She’s like all the other Tankies that suddenly found a home in the Republican Party.I'm assuming you are referring to Tulsi Gabbard. I would propose that she was a Democrat of convenience. Though I believe most politicians do not religiously adhere to the standard beliefs of their parties, most do have principles. Butto be a successfulfor a politician to be elected they often have to bend to the electorate. In Hawaii, that generally means being a Democrat, whether one is in local, state or federal office. There have been the occasional Republican success story, but they have been outliers and more significantly happened during different eras than the one in which Ms. Gabbard entered the political arena. If she had been born, raised and lived in a state with a more reddish tinge, she likely would have been in the GOP.
Gabbard would not be first or last to select party membership based on wanting success. The example that always first comes to my mind is John Crosbie.
I don't watch MSNBC (or FOX, or CNN for that matter) enough to know if they have any programmes dedicated exclusively to news reporting. My guess is that at least CNN (being the originator of "cable news" and at one time being a trusted source - we always had it on during the Gulf War, it occasionally provided some real timeintelligenceforewarning when we had incoming patients) still has at least a minimum of true news reporting in addition to the "commentary" that is the meat and potatoes of all the other American cable networks. And "commentary" is what makes the difference between what "journalists" do and what individuals such as Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson or pick a dozen or a gross of any other talking heads on cable "news" do. I don't know if Maddow, either now or in the past, categorized herself as a journalist - I also don't know if she ever did a straight reporting job.
In a quick scramble to find the definitive definition of "journalist", I found this that very aptly aligns with mydefinitionopinion (i.e., I'm commenting).
Tucker Carlson is a political commentator, not a reporter for factual news - The Ticker
On the April 26 edition for “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Carlson equated children wearing masks in public to child abuse and urged viewers to call the police or send a message to other mask-wearers. Carlson justifies this by claiming that the mask-wearers are the aggressors and wearing one is...theticker.org
But are "news outlets" (I use the term lightly - my reason self-explanatory, see above) obligated to to provide real-time, live, unedited coverage of anything? But let's stick to the political realm since that's what this thread (or at least the latest swerve) is about. How is the viewing of an event, consideration of the content/activity and then the reporting of that event censorship? I'm assuming that MSNBC later reported on, or at least commented on, what Trump had to say at his rally - probably unfavourably. Does the "equal opportunity" requirement of FCC programming rules apply? https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/political_programming_fact_sheet.pdf
Gabbard is a lunatic.Neo-cons were Republicans of convenience, and somehow have become a yardstick against which contemporary Republicans are measured to determine "extremism". Donald Trump used to be a Democrat. Gabbard is by inspection a centrist.
Always keep in mind that progressives are changing position more rapidly than conservatives (pretty much by definition).