We're going to find out much about our governing bodies of Congress over the next few days or weeks. We'll also find out if we're to be lead by a President or a dictator in the future.
History will not be kind to those who allow the POTUS to be above the law.
Yes, yes. We know. When the Senate performs it's job and throws this farce in the garbage where it belongs it will be because they all love Trump and are all as evil as he is.
Any excuse is a good one when it denigrates Trump or anyone not hating the man.
(Though I WILL say that we already found out much about our governing body when not a single Republican voted for impeachment. It says a lot about that body and it's willingness to do it's job when votes are 100% partisan.)
So only the left is 100% partisan? Not a single Republican voted for impeachment in the House, Dan. Not so for the Left. Your math is incorrect...as well as your logic.
You simply hate Obama and Hillary.We'll play the game if you like.
Can you point to where I said only one half is partisan? I agree that the math wasn't prefect - there were, I believe, 3 members that jumped the party line - but certainly nothing I said would support your claim that I think only the left is partisan. Just more false statements, declaring statements that were never made.
Have no clue where Obama and Hillary came into it, though - just throwing dirt, dirt that has no connection to reality?
I wonder if History will reflect how Justice Brett Kavanaugh was treated by the Democrats at his confirmation? I wonder who writes History.? Are they fair and balanced? Will History report how this Impeachment process was started even before President Trump was sworn in? Will history to reflect the "Insurance Plan" that was developed by top officials of the FBI and funded by the Hillary Campaign? Just wondering.
Hello Bill, you're apparently a Fox News watcher. Brett was given a pass with a faux investigation. Many witnesses wanted to be interviewed, but they weren't deemed worthy by the "investigators."
So there's that...
It sounds like you are saying that if the investigation didn't end up supporting your perspective then it was an incomplete investigation.
How do you feel about the criticisms of the Air Force's 'Project Bluebook' investigations?
It sounds like that to you, Gus. I can't remember for sure, but I think there were over 40 witnesses who were never contacted when they contacted the investigative team.
Is this simply my prospective? Or a reasonable question?
Not up to dare on the Report you referenced, and too tired to care tonight, Gus. About time for me to crash if they'll adjourn for the night. (yawn)
Randy.....Speaking of Free passes, wonder if you said the same for Hillary's "Investigation"...Oh I am sorry, I should have used the politically correct term "Matter"...and the meeting between Clinton with Obama's "puppet: Attorney General on the tarmac to talk about their Grandchildren?
But back to Brett...do you think it was proper and ethical to wait till the 9h hour to drop the bomb that should have actually been given to the FBI or other authority way before then. And surely you believed his accuser who said she had a fear of flying as the reason she could not come to the conformation sooner, but then admitted that she flies all the time? I have never witnessed behavior from so called Democratic leaders in my 50 years of voting eligibility. .
Randy, this is just my opinion. First of all the House just has no case as it stands. It's all hearsay and second-hand opinions. The case was poorly investigated by the House.
The Senate will hear the Houses case and vote to acquit the president due to lack of evidence. This would be prudent due to the lack of evidence. The Senate is doing their job following the law, and ultimately the Constitution. Do you really think it would be fair to remove the president with testimony that was the only opinion-oriented? This would set a new precedent that would be very harmful. I for one never want to see second-hand opinion-oriented evidence count in any form of trial let alone an impeachment trial. If this kind of logic is adopted we could see the majority using it to impeach president after president.
The House at best has provided good fodder for once again a conspiracy by the Senate to hide crimes for the president. It's good to feed, but it just is not enough to impeach the president. It appears their plan has come to fruition, they knew the outcome from day one.
You're mistake as to the proof the House provided, Shar. They've plenty to Impeach Trump and then some. It seems you really don't understand what Trump has done.
And you didn't address the past Senate trials which all have had new witnesses and documents after receiving the Articles from the House. An average of 33 witnesses per trial.
Why is this not important in the present trial?
Shar, don't worry about Randy's response. He does the same thing he accuses us of doing.
Not correct, Bill. I see the evidence as bad for Trump. But aren't surprised his enablers can't understand the process as this is a trial without the blessing of the AG. Sad he refuses to do his duty to the country, but instead protects Trump from any blow back on his unethical and illegal acts.
If Trump gets away with this, all future POTUS' will do the same. We may as well do away with any oversight by Congress if they have no constitutionally granted rights to do so. Congress will be obsolete in that case.
I Agree with you in concept, but not the way the Democrats handled the hearings he in the house. I do agree with your quest to do things correctly and I will be anxious to see if you remain as altrustic as the upcoming investigation into the "deep state" continues and comes to fruitician.
Shar doesn't understand my posts anyway, Bill.
It turns out there has never been a trial in the Senate without new documents and new witnesses being added. This puts to bed the excuses of the enablers that the House didn't do its job.
In the Clinton and Nixon trials, both witnesses and documents were added in the Senate trial.
It looks like it will be predictable and interesting.
Just for kicks I am channel-flipping between Fox and CNN.
Wait for it . . . wait for it . . .
Predictable yes, the first Senate trial in history without new witnesses and new documents after the House sent the articles to the Senate. It seems the Right doesn't care about precedent.
It's also obvious this trial is about protecting a criminal. At any cost to personal integrity or responsibility, as far as I'm concerned. As I've often said, "Time wounds all heels."
LOL This trial is about reducing the competition in the next election and gaining immediate power for the Democrats in Congress. Nothing else, and certainly not about "protecting a criminal"...the House doesn't even claim criminal events happened.
Get real, Dan. This trial in the Senate is about protecting a corrupt individual. The Senate Republicans are terrified of allowing new witnesses and documents in this "trial."
Every Senate trial has allowed new witnesses and documents to be seen and heard. Every one. Why are you so afraid of the truth, Dan? And you can ask that of the Senate Republicans as well.
That's the Hell of it, Wilderness. Pelosi and Schiff had their chance to add bribery because they have a good case for it. Why didn't they? What is their problem? Why take it this far without going all the way?
Is there something that might be brought out about Pence that would kick him out, too, and then Nancy would be president? I don't think she wants to be president or she would have been in there fighting tooth and toenail. What is it that is holding her back? My husband thinks she is afraid because of death threats, but I don't think she is afraid of anything.
Please don't say there's no evidence for bribery when both the president and Mulvaney have admitted it, and Mulvaney has said "get over it!" That is evidence that would hold up in any court of law, but then we know that this is just a kangaroo court with McConnell in charge.
The first impeachment where the House used hearsay, second-hand and opinion related evidence to develop the articles of impeachment.
This may be the reason why the Senate has had a change in precedence in regard to calling witnesses? The procedure used in the House was certainly history-making. The House has set a precedent in how they handled their end, and are promoting articles of impeachment without factual evidence. This is a precedent that is dangerous and opposes the rules of the Constitution.
The procedure in the House was history making because Barr didn't do his job, Shar. You apparently don't have a clue why the process was done this way.
How would have gone about it if you didn't have a Special Prosecutor to do the investigation? I'd like to know how you would have handled the grand jury setting with having it behind closed door as every grand jury does.
Have ever served on a grand jury or testified before one? There are no attorneys or representatives for the accused in the room as this is simply a fact finding process. That's why when someone from your side complains about this, they show their ignorance of the process.
I know I'm wasting my time trying to explain things to you as it won't make any difference in what you believe.
Barr did his job, he saw no impeachable offense or need to have a special prosecutor. That was his decision. In the end, he was correct in his judgment. The House made their choice to pursue the impeachment. The House had no case to impeach the president, and today we all bear witness to that fact. The House could not find evidence, and yet today we have Schiff spinning a tale on our Senate floor. A story that he can not prove, yet he has taken it upon himself to accuse the president of crimes without truth or evidence.
I have full knowledge of how an impeachment procedure is conducted. It was up to the House to investigate. It's up to the Senate to judge what they have put forth.
Explain the Grand Jury proceedings then, Shar. I've asked you several times. I don't believe you understand at all.
Apparently you trust the word of a known liar over the opinions and evidence provided with honored Ambassadors and heroes. Also the many documents proving Trump's guilt in the matter means nothing to you.
"How would have gone about it if you didn't have a Special Prosecutor to do the investigation? I'd like to know how you would have handled the grand jury setting with having it behind closed door as every grand jury does"
Did the House ask for a special prosecutor? They could if they wanted too? But I can find no information that said they did? So, I can't even comment any further on your post. If you have a resource I would like to see it. Lot's of If's.
The AG appoints a Special Prosecutor, Shar. It's his decision but refused to do so. You cannot simply ask for a SP and get one.
Now address the grand jury question, how would you have handled it?
The only article I could find on how the DOJ handled the whistleblower's complaint indicates simply the DOJ assessed the whistleblower's complaint and dismissed it, not finding it needed any further investigation.
"The Justice Department on Wednesday also released an Office of Legal Counsel opinion finding that the whistleblower complaint about Trump’s call was not an “urgent concern” and was not required to be transmitted to congressional intelligence committees."
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … raine-call
Again the House could have asked the DOJ to have a second look or request the call be investigated, and even request a special prosecutor. It would then be once again in the hands of the DOJ. I can't find any information that the House pursued the DOJ to do any further investigation. Could you offer a resource on where you read Barr refused to appoint a Special Prosecutor? I would be interested in seeing some evidence that the DOIOJ was asked for an SP.
Are you serious, Shar? The House knew Barr was Trump's boy. It's why Trump chose him in the first place. Don't tell me you didn't know that already.
Wise up, Shar! Barr represents Trump, not the people as he was meant to represent.
Randy, it's hard to keep up a conversation on the subject. you continually assume more than you should? You assume Barr is Trump's "boy" due to him choosing him for his position. Presidents hire and fire. It is clear you feel Trump should not have this privilege?
At any rate, the House should have done their job. that the bottom line. You are making vague excuses for the House. It is up to the House to do the job of the people and do it properly. There should be no, "well we thought it would be useless to follow procedure".This is a weak excuse that actually sounds ridiculous.
I suggest you listen to the defense today. They are giving facts, just full context of the Trump call, not just a few well-chosen words, and adding some drama to the delivery. I suggest you listen to the defense. Hopefully, it will help you understand why we are not on the same page.
Right on Shar! We had the "children" present their case, now we have begun hearing from the adults.
Yes, it is very clear the defense is systematically pointing out the facts, the law. The Houses' arguments are being crushed with the weight of facts. I would think it's eye-opening to most American's, and especially Senators that have had to sit and listen to nothing but a case built on nothing but opinions. Opinions derived from second-hand hearsay.
One would think the House ould not have the nerve to have brought this mess to the Senate.
I think you might be mistaken Randy. The House can request a Special Prosecutor. It is true that the AG's office must agree, but that doesn't mean one can't be requested by anyone but the AG.
Congress, (the House), also has the authority to appoint a commission, which would essentially be the equivalent of a Special Counsel. Did they do that? Do you think the DOJ would have refused a House request for a Special Prosecutor? (okay, I admit that is an arguable point, but, it is not a given that proves your point, it is merely a supposition)
Had Congress, (the House), pursued either option the DOJ would have been forced to comply or deny. That didn't happen.
So, just as you support that the House had no other options than take the path they did, others are also on solid ground when they support the contention that the House failed in their efforts to follow protocol and ask for a Special Prosecutor.
It wouldn't make the slightest difference Gus, and Nancy knew it. The way Barr went out of his way to pooh pooh the Mueller report should tell anyone what his game is.
Or do you believe he's actually the people's guardian of the law instead of Trump's chosen shield against being ousted?
"Nancy knew it" you just read in whatever suits your narrative. My question, do we need a representative that does not follow protocol if she feels our president has committed a crime. You seem to be saying, Nancy, is wringing her hands, and just giving up on her convictions instead of doing the right thing? She had the power to do a proper investigation, and ask for a special counsel if she felt it one was needed.
It well appears the Dems wanted a 24-hour Trump-bashing ad. And they had the audacity to use an impeachment charge to have that ad. This is so disgusting I can't even put it into words.
This morning the president team is laying out the truth. They are using all evidence in full context. They are clarifying this case with truth and clear law. They need not be dramatic or twist words to meet their needs. They have the truth in full context because it has been there all the time... Read the transcript in full. Listen, and hear the laws that pertain to the President. Listen to the witnesses' testimony in full, not bits that the Hous have quoted over the past few days.
You want me to listen to Trump's attorneys and dismiss what the House managers have shown? Of course you do!
No, I want you to hear the evidence in full context. It just a better way to ascertain the truth. The mangers case has been torn down just within this first hour. The defence has truth to rely on not twisted rhetoric.
They want to simply get their two cents in before they refuse to allow witnesses and documents which are devastating to their case. Watch and see, Shar!
Truth is on their side.
Randy, you are being closed-minded. Once again let me remind you the House had the power. Up to you to decipher why thee House did not follow protocol, why they did not pursue witnesses. Your grasping at straws. Today the defense has filled in critical facts. real facts, not conjecture based on what if's, or maybe...
The defense providing the piece to a puzzle that would never be complete due to a House that sought to hide the most important pieces.
If you watched today, I think you can see just what the House did. The defense did a wonderful job to undo the Houses grift. They were simply superb.
In previous posts, I claimed I thought it would be positive to hear new witnesses. Today I can see none are needed... I for one do not think this scam should go on even one more day. The House is doing nothing but trying to further smear Trump during the election. Talk about election interference. My God. And this bunch used our money our Government to try to pull a cheap campaign scam. This is the most disgusting political scheme I have witnessed in my life. I am very sure after today there will be no witnesses called. Today the Dems have been outed. Can't imagine what Monday will bring?
If I were a Dem, I would be furious! As I have always said would it not be more prudent to just get a good candidate with a promising agenda?
I did indeed watch Trump's "Dream team" get in a few pokes in the House case, but over all they failed to show Trump was really serious about fighting corruption in Ukraine.
Especially now he's trying to get a bill passed so our officials can bribe foreign countries. Something he seems to be familiar with.
They also attacked the process but got nowhere with that if you understand why the House had to meet behind closed doors. We've already discussed this and you should now understand my Grand Jury example.
Over all, not much else happened.
They have nothing to stand on but their own opinions about why they had to meet behind closed doors? They just did not follow protocol and in some cases, they went against precedent.
Today was riveting in my opinion. However, I always lean toward hearing facts that as a rule tend to quickly clear smoke. I was impressed minute by minute. I don't think they will go on and on or repeat. I think this will be clear cut, and wrapped up quickly.
I am going to make this very simple. Who's responsibility would it have been to ask for a special prosecutor? As of yet, I have not found any resource that substantiates that the House approached the DOJ for a SP. Please offer a link to a resource.
Why would anyone question whether the Senate should bring witnesses when Trump himself said he would "love" to have these witnesses testify before the Senate?
Here it is..in his words:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … al-vpx.cnn
Because "nobody" believes anything Trump says, and that includes the his own supporters. Why should they believe him when he says those words?
There's a straight answer! And,I don't care whether you support Trump or don't support him, that is sad to know about the "leader of the free world." Is that winning?
I don't even believe most of his supporters mean it when they say they want witnesses and a fair trial. Look how easily they acquiesced and regurgitated every lame excuse, even when the latest lame excuse contradicts a previous lame excuse. I tell ya, this episode might go down in history as "Stupidgate.".
They cannot understand why Trump using Rudy--not a government official in any way--to bribe the Ukrainian president to investigate his rival is wrong.
I'm so ashamed of Trump trying to corrupt a man who ran on an anti-corruption campaign. The very first interaction with the American leader, resulted in him being corruted by the POTUS. What a POS!
Why would anyone question whether the Senate should bring witnesses when Trump himself said he would "love" to have these witnesses testify before the Senate?
Here it is..in his words:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … al-vpx.cnn
Because they know it's cover-up, Don. Trump was advised by several people what he was doing was wrong. He knew it and went ahead anyway. Why those on the Right cannot get their heads around his intentionally breaking the law, not to mention his oath of office, is proof they don't care.
That's the bottom line! I didn't take seriously his "shooting someone on the street and getting away with it," statement, but now I've conversed with some of his supporters, I truly believe they wouldn't care a bit.
That is the bottom line. And their inability to provide anything near a valid answer to this question is evidence of that. Now Trump turns around and says he'd "love" to have them testify but "it's a national security problem." They have no real reason.
This guy is above the law because that's the way his minions want it to be. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. When I listened in on calls with the likes of conservative "Tea Party" members, and those cut from that same political cloth, I head so much about how Obama was a dictator. But, I also repeatedly heard this theme of "We need a man who can come in and just get things done." They WANTED a dictator...they wanted a white dictator. They found one in the clownish con man. He loves his uneducated.
Instead of having a trial for Trump, they want to investigate any and everyone in the government because the people in our government are boogeymen. They can't see for the wool that blinds them.He turned them against their own country.
Hard to believe so many people can overlook accomplishments, and only focus on the negative aspects of a duly elected president. Of course if one only looks for negative, they will always find it, as we live in a negative world. Hillary would have been so much better because she is so honest and truthful.
Is it really that hard to believe considering the nature of this guy? Also, I'm guessing you do remember the Obama Presidency? I think there were more than a few who only looked for the negative with him. Naw, not hard to believe.
Do you find the negativity Obama and Trump face to be relatively equal?
I don't recall anyone on the forums crying how evil Obama was...for three years, hardly missing a day.
I don't recall anyone repeatedly, every day, calling the President every vile and disgusting name they could come up with.
I don't recall anyone seriously claiming Obama was mentally ill.
I don't recall calls for impeachment before he even took office, as happened with Trump.
I don't recall the FBI spending years investigating fake claims that the president colluded with Putin (or any other foreign dignitary).
I don't recall the news media ever even approaching the 92% negativity level they used for Trump.
In fact, the ONLY thing really negative I can recall about Obama was the birther garbage and his socialistic view of redistributing wealth - a perfectly acceptable reason to complain. Political viewpoints always are.
I don't even know where you were during the Obama administration. I was on the political front lines, listening to lobbying calls every day. Believe me (or don;t, lol), there were vile names!!! And, Remember McConnell's one term comment?
They fought Obama EVERY step of the way. It's not his fault that he didn't give the R's the same kind of ammunition that Trump does. If it walks like a duck...
Please spare us "hard sun," Obama had the liberal media in his hip pocket. I voted for him his first term because I was a "fish" for his "hope and change" facade. The truth is, no president in modern history has had the documented 92% negative media storm that "our President" has endured.
Trump causes himself trouble, Bill. And will continue to do so long as he's on the throne.
Randy. he speaks his mind. Those who are concerned with results know that and do not let it stand in the way of his accoplishments. Those that want smoke and mirrors and political correctness do not care about positive outcomes for Americans and our precious country.
He speaks his mind because no one has ever whipped his ass, Bill. If he had accused my dad of being in on the Kennedy assassination, and insulted my wife like he did Ted Cruz, either he'd whip my ass or get thrashed himself.
He's an arrogant, low class liar, and there's no hiding those facts, for sure.
If you heard the comparison of what Hillary told the FBI during her informal "interview" by the FBI on a Saturday (LOL), and what was uncovered by the FORMAL investigation, you would know what a low class liar is. But just as you accuse us of turning a blind eye toward Trump, you had no problem with her crimes. As an airforce officer I worked closely with secret and top secret war plans and documents on a daily basis for years. I know the rules, and had I perpetrated one tenth of what she did, I would still be in Levenworth. Well let me clarify, if I decided to become a Transgender, Obama would probably have pardoned me before he left office.
Oh, I'll bet you really dislike a man who dodged the draft as Trump did.
When Lt. Colonel Vindman--a purple heart recipient and honored representative for the State Dept.--testified Trump tried to extort the Ukrainian President, I'll bet you didn't believe him either.
Or Ambassador Yovonovich, what was her reason to lie on the stand, or any of the other witnesses for that matter. Even Donnie's boy Sondland--who gave a cool million to Donnie's inauguration fund--said it was a quid quo pro under oath.
Tell me Bill, why would all of these people lie about what was going on? Do you really think Trump is more honest than these career public servants? Really?
And do I need to remind you Hillary was never POTUS?
We all know why this is. Trump wants and tries to get the negative media attention. He even calls them the enemy of the people. This makes his voters happy. Most Presidents actually attempt to get the media to like them.
So the 92 percent media negativity number only means Trump is adept at playing his people like a good con man does.
The media of today is the enemy of the people. You are probly too young to know what standards real journalists and newscasters were required and happy to maintain back before the liberals tainted those standards to the FAKE news of today. Even when Bush Jr. Was running for president they had better standards. Look up what happen to Dan Rather CBS Anchor in 2004. Even then the media was way more honest than the garbage from ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT, Time, and much more.
I'm not too young to remember, Bill. And we didn't have the likes of non-journalists like Hannity and Limbaugh giving their opinions and conspiracy theories to gullible people.
By the way, which media source do you trust?
Tell me more about Hannity's conspiracy theories. List some of them.
I would be glad to list my media sources, when you catch with answering the questions I have put to you that remain unanswered.
Bill, I have no problem answering queries put to me. I can't find any put directly to me though. I see some put to Don(Hard Sun) though. Please ask again because I'd really like to know where you get your "facts".
As for the Hannity conspiracies, remember Seth Rich? Hannity claimed he was murdered because he had info about the DNC hack.
When Seth's family threatened to sue Hannity, he suddenly dropped the story and made a poor excuse as to why he did so. Google it, Bill!
"That's because, according to a report by NPR media reporter David Folkenflik, the Rich conspiracy may have been promulgated by Fox News and a Dallas-based supporter of President Donald J. Trump under White House supervision. Even more astonishingly, the conspiracy theory may have been approved by Trump."
That's good, Randy - counter one conspiracy theory with another one saying the first one was done by someone else. Well done!
Okay on that ONE, But one mistake does not make him at conspiracy theorist. On the other hand liberal media has made so many false predictions and accusations that I lost count. Also, I know I have trouble following this thread too, but if you look I posted several questions with your name at the beginning of the post that remain unanswered.
No hesitation on calling fellow Americans the enemy of the people; following the Trumpian line. You just proved my point and made your first point look meaningless.
And, I already lived a couple lifetimes by the Dan Rather fiasco. I do look young though so thanks. My profile pic is only from last year! Thinking keeps me young despite my being through it up and down and all over. Besides, I'm plenty old enough to remember when HW was running for President.
Also, when it starts, "You are probly too young" I know the argument is weak. A decade of eyes open is worth more then a century of following the flavor of the day.
At any rate, journalistic integrity is not the same, one reason being um..there are more journalists. Of course there are some bad apples, and we'd do well to start at Fox News. But, how do you know the media was more honest back then? You dont!
I mean, I'll give you the media was less biased. It takes more op eds, etc. to to get the attention nowadays with our saturated news. This matter is much more intricate than just, "back in the day the media was more honest."
No, this is why Yang's MATH makes so much sense. Americans need to stop over-simplifying everhthing and start thinking. Especially in this day and age where there's so much media that everyone thinks they are political junkies who have the mainlines to the real truth.
I'll leave you with a simple question. If all news is FAKE...why do we even talk about politics? Why do you read it or watch it? Do you have the magical mainline to the real news?
Hard Sun ,
First of all I will give you my educated opinion on your first statement above. The term "media" does not refer to a person. It is an abstract like Religion or politics. You can not touch it like something concrete, a chair, a car etc, So your idea that I am attacking a person is false. I am Bill. So there is Bill the person, Bill's personality, and Bill's performance or behavior. So am not attacking the people in this case I am attacking the behavior of the media, ABC, CNN etc.
Why call these media the enemy of the people is because the focus is on the negative 24-7 which is not being honest with the people that the networks serve.
Next, about your age. I was born in 1948, so yes I assumed that you were younger than me, and rather than saying Sam Donaldson, Walter Cronkite, or David Brinkley, I chose one that I knew you might know. The fact is I have a Grandson that was 15 years old in 2004. I will ignore your analysis of my statement that you might too young.
I disagree with the excuse: because there are more Journalists. I agree that the media is more biased.
The real problem as I see it, is that Journalists today, lack the core standards that the journalists back in the day used. For example, they reported facts and backed them up with sources e.g. a credible person as a source, a credible authority, or other valid reference that is verifiable. They reported, and they let the people form their own opinions.
That is not happening near enough on so many media sources today.
"The term "media" does not refer to a person. It is an abstract like Religion or politics. You can not touch it like something concrete, a chair, a car etc, So your idea that I am attacking a person is false. "
IMO this is a bad excuse. People run the media, people make up the media. If Bill worked for Fox news, then Bill would be part of the media. You are allowing Trump to turn you against fellow Americans. You aren't stating "it is the enemy of the people" you are stating "they are the enemy of the people. This has real life consequence, to real people, that you can touch.
Bringing up age again shows me where you think your best argument lies and only weakens your argument.
There are people in the media that don't do the research they should. They don't get the credible sources they should. I still say this is mainly because they have more competition and are trying harder to stand out from the crowd. Nothing you wrote refuted that argument, or answers my question: How do you know the media was honest back in say 1950? I'd argue that the media had a much easier time lying to you back then as opposed to today.
I'm always open to changing my mind on a matter. But, it takes more than "I'm right because I'm older." Sorry., i had more wisdom when I was 15, then some 70 year olds did then. Oh...and I see positive stories all the time in the media. Just not about Trump...who calls them the enemy. Go figure.
Hard son...put your money where your .outh and post some evidence where CNN, MSNBC, the NYT and others have aired positive accomplishments of your President, and while your at it show me where these same networks invite Republican senators to their panel discussions and more like Fox News does just about every day. As far as your opinions expressed I see no reason to try to dispute an irrational belief that Journalism could have never been better than it is now.
Always did like Paul Harvey and "The Rest of the Story".
Unfortunately, I think there's a misunderstanding, so the terms of any bet would be shaky at best lol. I never said the media airs positive stories about the President all the time. In fact, I said the opposite in the very last sentence: " I see positive stories all the time in the media. Just not about Trump...who calls them the enemy. Go figure."
I understand there's a lot in my comment, but pulling out that one statement, and misapplying it, isn't getting us anywhere. And, you offer no back up for your statements. Once again, how do you know the media was more honest to you back in say, 1960, then it is now...you don't. Apologies that "I'm older than you so I'm right" just doesn't cut it.
Read you own posts and the post from your friend Valeant. What you both accuse me of doing to the "People" of the liberal biased Networks is exactly what you both are doing to me, personally attacking a fellow American!
Finally, please read my reply to "Promisem", an save me from having to copy and paste it to this reply.
Please reply to my question of what news source you trust, Bill. I'll wager it's Fox News!
I just said I don't want to gain up on you. Two people agreeing with another person on a matter is WAY different than calling you the "enemy of the people." I never called you the enemy, in fact, I think I implied the exact opposite, when I said something to the effect of you're probably a good guy. I don't think you are truly reading my comments. I do think you are being closed-minded. I've been respectful of your view and offered counter views, and I get nothing in return but you being offended. What are you here for...to have people agree with you, and reaffirm what you already think? Debate is healthy.
You both attacked me personally, which is what you both try to say I did Quit playing this game an take some responsibility for your own actions.
Good luck with that idea Bill. It will only get worse from here since you’ve told it like it is.
Where did I attack you personally? I don't think you're cut out for this.You know you're wrong for calling the media the enemy of the people.
No one attacked you personally, Bill. Jeeze, are you so sensitive you can't take any disagreement with your opinions?
No wonder you didn't make it on FB.
Both of them said I attacked my fellow Americans who work for the liberal networks. I explained that it was the behavior of the Networks, not the people. So then in future posts they both attacked me as a fellow American/person. Is this too difficult for you to understand as well? It has nothing with the comments they made toward me, it is about their hypocrisy, or lack of being able to understand simple concepts.
No, we called you out for repeating rhetoric that has led to violence against journalists. In your mind, calling the media the enemy of the people may be towards the networks, but other Trump supporters hear that as a call to violence towards journalists. That's literally the definition of misunderstanding a simple concept.
My question is, why are you even here Bill? You haven't published any articles that I see. Do you just join sites to troll forums with incendiary far-right conspiracy theories?
So, you are in charge of the Hub Pages? I would have never guessed? Well, that makes a big Difference.
In that case, I think I will stay and see how many more people come out of hibernation.
I will post an article. Is there a suspense date to do that? I still have to post a bio too, right? You forgot about that.
Nah, it's cool. Just continue to spew your far-right opinions and we'll start calling you Sergei or Dimitri instead of Bill.
This gentleman has only joined Hubpages a few days ago? Not sure what his motive, but come on...
This is what this group does Sharlee to anyone who disagrees with them. They search for any way they can to diminish or demean a person who is telling it like it is and not buying into their lies. From saying you can’t spell because if a typo to you haven’t written an article (which isn’t any kind of requirement to be a hubber either). You should know that by now being a truth teller.
It’s par for the course!
Yes, I have been a troll. a foreigner, and yes, even a man posing apparently as a woman. As a rule, the insults are vague digging insults. I always view this kind of behavior as proof that the person is cornered, and they have nothing more to offer but an insult. This kind of behavior on a forum makes it clear groupthink is contagious and makes it a comfortable place for some that have no thoughts of their own . A place to blend in...
Not sure how you feel, but I prefer individuals that ask questions, open up to research, and facts. I just have little respect for a groupthink mentality.
"groupthink mentality." No you don't agree with anyone else on these forums...other than those who think as you do.
That is just not true. I have even agreed with you on occasion. It would make common sense I would naturally agree with persons that I shared a common view. Randy, we share these threads, perhaps as I stated just ignore any comment you find offensive or even better against your views.
.Not sure why we just can't be civil? Your comment here is judgemental of me personally, not a view of a group in general, but me.
My view was offering a few facts. Facts of a few of the names I have been called, and. please note I did not identify the persons that called me these names. I offered a view of what has and is going on here on HP forums. I pointed no one person out, I made no personal accusation.
Would you think it plausible to have threads that we stipulate only rightwing person's post, and give the same courtesy to those that lean left? I would enjoy that. It would offer a place of like-minded persons to enjoy each other's views. But, would we not be giving up the opportunity to hear others that think differently than ourselves
Who first made a charge of "groupthink mentality," Shar? You or I?
You're not the sole judge of who is being civil either, Shar. You claim to want to have a civil discussion but admire a person who is the least civil of all time. Why don't you send him a line and ask him to be as civil as you want others to be?
But you dare not do it, and instead complain about the lack of civility on the forums. There's a name for that....
It was I. I did not direct my comment to any one person. Only offered an opinion on what I have witnessed here on the HPs Political forum. You clearly get personal.
And no I am nota judge of who is civil and who is not. However, if you address me with a personal insult, I feel I have the right to point it out.
This gentleman has not ever been uncivil to me or I would. I think you know if anyone insults me for no reason, I let them know. Most of the time anyway.
Do you have a specific personal insult in mind, Shar?
You said I insulted you, Shar. What was the insult you claimed was directed towards you?
No way! I did not say you insulted me. At this point, you might be one of the few that have not insulted me in a long while. My comment was just saying - I am on the sidelines, keeping score, and if I get an insult I let it in one ear out the other. No, I am not accusing anyone of insulting me at this time. I have been insulted in the past, and have also done my share of insulting. But, I am trying to get along with all. Recently a user sort of hinted they would have me banned. In one ear out the other...
I do realize my opinions can come off as snarky, but I am trying not to point any fingers.
Calling fellow Americans the 'enemy of the people' is disgusting. And maybe you're so old that your memory forgets that it was Reagan's FCC that abolished the Fairness Doctrine in media. It's clear by your many comments that you're getting your news from the 'entertainment channel,' Fox News, and not legitimate news services.
Again, calling CNN, MSNBC and other liberal media the enemy of the people because they are not reporting all the news is not attacking people, it is the behavior of the network. There have been studies that back up the 92% negative news about this Administration. If we need to do a role play to help you understand the difference between network behavior and a person, I would be glad to accommodate.
So. What you're saying that the media is the enemy of the people because they write mostly negative stories about the President? A President that has attacked that same media since day one! Sorry, but that comes off wrong. America is greater than one man, to most of us. In fact, some of us think it would be un-American to fall in line with this guy. America will never bend to the will of one man, or woman.
Yes, America is greater than one man. In includes not only millions of people but giant organizations that work unceasingly towards what benefits them without regard to those people.
Such as the media in general - a media that has gone from reporting news, the whole news, to providing only slanted and biased news and commentary. A media that puts that biased news and commentary ahead of the whole story, and that isn't shy at all about it. We used to be able to listen and make our own minds, but that is nearly impossible now with only one side ever being reported - the side that "media" thinks will benefit them.
While we've always had the Hannity's giving their commentary it has become the norm for basic news to do the same. The only difference is that it is "hidden" by reporting only parts of the story and not reporting anything that doesn't fit within the political goals of that particular outlet. It is "hidden" within body language and terminology designed to produce a reaction often contrary to truth - the mainstay of commentators has become the norm for news reporting as well.
In this regard the media has indeed become the enemy of the people - a constant barrage of PR intended to convince the gullible of something that is only partially true or even totally false. Our "news" has degenerated to political speeches and little more.
Good stuff. And then you end it with they are the enemy. Did you say that about Fox when they were so biased about Obama? Likely not. My point is that calling fellow Americans the enemy because of a bias to a President that called them names, hell, calls everyone who disagrees with him names, from day one, is bending to his will. You're saying, it's okay for him to say whatever, put out any lies he wants, but should the media fight back, they are the enemy. And, if we all see the bias, and react against it, arent we doing Trumps work? Aren't we doing EXACTLY what Trump wants. This is Trump's game. He loves the media and he loves them being negative about him because it makes his base happy.
At any rate, the media as a whole, can use some work. Like..less opinion pieces. But, they are Americans
Fox is not "the media", any more than Sean Hannity is.
Our problem is not, and never was, that some of it took this road; it is that virtually ALL of it does today.
"You're saying, it's okay for him to say whatever, put out any lies he <Trump> wants, but should the media fight back, they are the enemy."
Odd - I went back and re-read my post. I can't find a single mention of Trump. How did it become about the failures and faults of Trump, when my entire post was about the (true) bias and spin of the media in general?
"At any rate, the media as a whole, can use some work. Like..less opinion pieces."
I have no problem with opinion pieces. In fact, I like our channel two that produces one from each of the table each day, and both on the same general topic.
My problem is with supposedly news reporting that is actually commentary and political speeches disguised as news. And when it comes to politics that's all we see today. Some news about an airplane crash or the weather, but when it comes to anything remotely political it becomes commentary inserted into the center of a news session.
Wilderness, are you not feeling pleased this morning with the defense pretty much destroying the managers testimony? It is so wonderful to see all the BS put into true context. Just can't beat factual truth.
I do understand the issue with news reporting, and the issues started before Trump. My main problem here, which was being discussed before your post, is the issue that Trump is front and center on. I mean Trump is the one using the phrase Enemy of the People, so yeah, he's relevant, and he's fueling media bias with his constant attacks on the media. Other Presidents were able to at least stem the tide of media bias by attempting to court the media, at least to a small extent, but Trump fuels the "us vs them" attitude along just about EVERY line the Americans can be divided on. We need a real leader who can take tough stances, that aren't black and white. The problem is that Trump's people don't want to hear all that. They want to hear Media bad, Trump good. And, yes, he's helped turn the left into Orange Man bad, media (except Fox) good.
Honestly, I never watch news on the television. I don't have cable TV, and I don't watch it. So, I just read the stories I want to, and get my news from a wide range of sources. I think part of the problem is that the older generations--mainly boomers--are still sitting around with Fox, CNN, or MSNBC on all day. I know of several that do this right off top of my head. This is not a good way to get news at all IMO. But, the same people that rail against the media, are very often, the same people that have the news on 24/7. I'm sure it does get ridiculous watching it that much. MATH!
No need. It's already been proven that there are Trump supporters who cannot discern what the enemy of the people means and have targeted and attacked journalists. So for you to continue to parrot such violent rhetoric publicly is disgusting. That you have no moral compunction about putting the lives of your fellow Americans at risk is reprehensible.
And I don't doubt the studies as this administration is built on negative news. Human rights violations in separating families, protecting murderers both in the military and in Saudi Arabia, abandoning allies to be slaughtered, assassinating foreign government officials, making racist statements...the list goes on.
Funny how you pick an choose what part of my post to respond to, but hypocrisy is considered a virtue to liberal and Democrats, and you and your partner hard sun both fit the mold. We will see how it all turns out next week and in November. You both should both spend less time here and more time helping illegal to get registered to vote so we can have a fair election this year.
Put me in with Don and Val anytime, Bill. I predict the Republicans will cover up in this trial and not allow witnesses and documents. I also predict more and more info will come to light adding even more proof of the criminality of Trump.After all, those on the Right have their heads on a pike.
The left has no monopoly on hypocrisy, Bill. The guy you're enabling is the very definition of one. And while we're suggesting what each other should do, why don't you spend less time on the forums and instead go down and help build the imaginary wall on the border? See how this works?
In reality Randy, all I see on these threads is you and your cronies attacking every one personally. You told me that Shar does not always keep up with what you are posting, and I see clearly that she has a good handle on what is going on. Then you claim that You can not find where I asked you specific questions and you failed to answer them. I have only been here a week, if that long, and I can find posts easily.
Now, I see you attacking contrbuters based on their writing/journalistic experience? I could go on, but I choose not to. We should be able to have a dialog on the issues without having to attack each other. I came here because I thought it would be different than FB, and it seems like it is worse. This seems to be the same thing that we see going on in the House and the Senate for decades which does not benefit America or its citizens.
All I see from you are Fox News talking points, Bill. Someone who boasts they have no peer here, intelligence wise, deserves no slack.
There's no mystery why you didn't like FB, Bill. Most probably disagreed with your "talking points" there as well.
Feel free to ask those questions again, Bill. I don't want to be accused of evading them. I get frustrated myself asking those on the Right questions they ignore.
I already asked one of them again in a previous reply. "Someone who boasts they have no peer here, intelligence wise, deserves no slack." You have an interesting way of communicating, Randy. How about copying and pasting where I boasted about intelligence here.
The only ones I see doing that are you and your cronies, who seem think they are God's gift to the field of journalism.
I see you complain about personal attacks but hand out your own personal attacks left and right.
For the record, I'm not God's gift to journalism. I just object to someone encouraging violence against journalists.
I didn't assert that to you. Bill. You need to be sure an assertion is directed to you before bitching about it.
You are indeed a bit sensitive.
Hi Bill. I hope you will stick around. There are some interesting conversations to be had here, once in awhile, in between the partisan bickering. Many of us have been here for years and have been sparring for a long time so we know each other's peccadilloes and don't pay them much mind.
Welcome to the forums! ::-)
I am still waiting for you to explain how open borders are smart and border walls are stupid as you coined it in a previous post I responded to..
I didn't say open borders are smart, Bill. I said a wall was stupid if it could be easily breached with an acetylene torch or one could simply go around it,
Now, answer my query re your favorite media sources.
Randy, The alternative to a border wall has been that Democrats believe that we should have open borders, which is why I asked for your response. If you agree with them, explain why or why not if you don't That is all I ask.
Buiding a wall along the entire border is impossible. You should know that already and I shouldn't have to print a topographical map to make you see the truth in my statement. Nor do you contest my statement re cutting a hole in the fence.
I do not want open borders, no matter what your news source claims. Better immigration policies are what I desire.
Now, what sources are you using for your claims? If I have to answer more questions from you before you respond to mine, then so be it. I'm accustomed to this from the Right.
I am still waiting for you to justify your statement that border walls are "stupid by telling us why open borders is smart.
A conservative lecturing someone on hypocrisy. Not that's rich.
-Are we still complaining about presidents golfing?
-How about whining about the budget deficits? Is that still in style?
-Trump and family are using unsecured phones, e-mails and communicating via Whatsapp with other foreign leaders - are you out there chanting lock them up yet?
-I suppose you've asked for an investigation into Ivanka for her using her presidential father to secure those Chinese trademarks just like Hunter Biden secured a position on the board of Burisma, right?
-Lindsey Graham never believed a crime needed to be committed to be impeached, until it was Trump.
-Mitch McConnell really wanted witnesses, but only in the impeachment of a democrat.
-Trump doesn't believe the whistleblower should be believed unless he testifies. This after he only submitted written answers in the Russia Investigation.
-A growing list of GOP lawmakers who claim to be pro-life and then get their mistresses abortions when they need to.
-The party that whines about a Russia Investigation being so costly that it made money while holding 33 hearings on Benghazi where nothing was found.
I've got a list of about 800 more if needed.
And nice ridiculous comment about voting. Another conspiracy theory about illegal immigrants voting when all research says exactly the opposite. Thank you for proving my point about where you get your 'facts.'
Interesting pivot/deflection. Not that you have any data to back up a cause and effect.
Utah, allowing some immgrants to drive since 2005. How big is their illegal voting problem? Just a bunch of fearmongering.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/ … lions.html
And what does this have to do with Trump's Impeachment, exactly?
"The media of today is the enemy of the people."
Joseph Goebbels would love that kind of talk if he were alive today.
Hi! Long time no see. :-) Glad you're back.
It's something isn't it Promisem? It's a shame to see what is likely to be proud Americans get so caught up. It happens. But, I think it's past time for some of these extremists to reel themselves in a bit. I don't want to feel like we're ganging up on this guy, but wow.
Could you imagine if Obama used those specific words "Enemy of the People" in regards to Fox News...as an organization. We all need to take a step back now and gain some perspective. I think that helps prevent this demonizing of certain groups.
Hard Sun, I'm starting to see this as a war between open minds and closed minds.
Open minds put facts before opinions. Closed minds do it the other way around.
They latch onto propaganda like "enemy of the people" to protect their fragile egos because they are incapable of admitting they are wrong.
Seems like you have been brain washed by the liberal/negative media like several I hear from on this thread. Trying to have a rational dialog with irrational minds is like attempting to convince a drug/alcohol addict to stop using. I will just wait and see what happens between now and November, and not respond to your baseless personal attacks.
Bill, your postings are perfect examples of Sean Hannity fanatics who have nothing but contempt for democracy.
Attacks like yours are more than personal. Anyone who wants to squash all media except their own can't wait to get rid of the 1st Amendment. We'll just make Fox News the only legal media.
I'm a professional journalist who voted 100% Republican for more than 30 years of my adult life. I have worked with many dedicated conservative and liberal journalists. I have worked for both a Republican newspaper and a Democratic newspaper.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
"Here you go again"
First You equate me with a close associate of Hitler, and now you label me a :Sean Hannity Fanatic?"
Where did I say I want to squash all media except my own as you put it. Are you a psychic? I doubt it.
I think I made myself clear that the liberal media "Obama's Media", purposely does not report the positive accomplishments of this administration, President Trump and our First Lady. This is quite obvious to you as well as me.
I do not want to get rid of the 1st or the 2nd amendment. We need lots of media sources, but not biased opinion factories.
FOX is certainly not perfect, but I do see they have employed people like Chris Mathews and Juan Williams that support views that Democrats often have. Does CNN,MSNBC,ABC have conservative reporters employed. Who is the conservative writer for the NYT? How about Time Magazine? Do they have conservative writer?
Thanks for the Bio. Not sure how that justifies how you treated me. Guess you may be a victim of TDS too!
Journalists have been assaulted and even murdered because people like you call them "the enemy of the people".
You seriously have a problem with equating criticisms of your extremist posts with criticisms of you as a person. Try harder to see the difference.
Your knowledgable comments about Fox News and your lack of knowledge about other media proves my point about where you get your far right views.
BTW, Bret Stephens and especially David Brooks are among many conservative journalists at the "liberal" New York Times.
Glad to see your input.
I've got a degree in journalism and have been a journalist for decades. I agree with you. There is no longer objectivity in the media of today. It seems that the left has mastered the art of the unbalanced story. There is NO objectivity. They hate President Donald Trump and so that is how they report stories on him. Very seldom is the same about of time or news space given to the President Donald Trump's response to an accusations as there is given to those who accuse President Donald Trump of something.
The NYT has so many retractions, they have to reform how they do things.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/scie … .html?_r=1
Don't get me started on the number of stories CNN gets wrong. It is a real shame
"CNN’s Jim Sciutto, a former Obama-administration factotum who had earlier been caught spreading lies about Trump’s supposed prior knowledge of a meeting between his son and Russians, claimed, based on his supposed CIA and administration sources, that the CIA had precipitously pulled a high-level spy out of Moscow essentially because of President Trump’s recklessness in handling classified info. With a wink and a nod... Sciutto has not apologized for his untruth although even the New York Times — along with the U.S. State Department and the CIA itself — debunked the key claims of his anonymously sourced allegations. The Times, in fact, directly contradicted CNN"
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ … -but-news/
There is no longer a desire to get a balanced story only to report stories in a way to promote the Democrat party and liberals.
President Donald Trump never said journalists were the enemy of the people. He said "Fake News" is the enemy of the people. I believe he has a valid point.
Today, few people have no idea of the many scandals from the obama administration. The biased and non-report of the media helped him get away with everything from the IRS scandal, to Fast and Furious, to Benghazi and more.
I believe objective journalism is something in the past. I hope it changes.
Good to hear your voice.
Hes said fake news MEDIA again and again, and went on to describe what he means by that again and again. Every news network in the US is the enemy, he's even included Fox in that group. That's the way it is. Pretend it's not so..I don't care. I know right from wrong..and I know Trump is wrong.
Interesting opinions about journalism. I see you worked at a bank. Where did you work for decades as a full-time reporter and editor?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/j-michael-k … i-58120012
Please tell us more about your career so we can have a lively debate about your anti-media comments. They are suprising to hear from a professional journalist.
Let's hear about YOUR experience as a full-time reporter and editor.
I never worked as an editor.
I've worked for decades as a full-time freelance writer. I've written for major newspapers such as the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Glendale News Press, which is part of the LA times and such magazines as Entrepreneur magazine, History magazine, Shutterbug magazine and many others.
If you were not suffering with such an advanced case of TDS, you would be able to realize that I said nothing about journalism. I have an issue with today's journalists who are not objective in their reporting. They serve the needs of the Democrat party.
My comments, to those who have an ability to comprehend written English, are not about the media but those who work in it and their inability to engage in objective reporting.
Until you are able to cure your TDS, I doubt you would be able to have a lively debate about anything. I believe all you are capable of doing is being negative and trying to antagonize anyone who doesn't agree with you.
How sad it is to see such a thing.
I worked 16 years as a reporter and editor at four daily newspapers in Ohio including the Dayton Daily News from 1980 to 1996.
After that, I was an online publisher with major daily newspapers for 11 years. I had responsibility for all online content, editors and reporters.
Someone who writes humor articles for self-published books and hides his real job is not a professional journalist.
That person has no credibility in claiming to be a journalist and trying to make expert comments about "liberal" media.
Maybe your Linkedin page is as old as mine. Hasn't been updated since 1999. Around when I stopped working at the bank. It was a few years ago. All that experience and you don't seem to be able to do an online search to see all the articles I've written. Maybe you need to take a class.
Talk about a lack of credibility.
"Until you are able to cure your TDS, I doubt you would be able to have a lively debate about anything. I believe all you are capable of doing is being negative and trying to antagonize anyone who doesn't agree with you."
Thank you for proving my point.
Don't know if you are a syndicated newspaper columnist, but I am. Want to learn more about my column "No Assignment Too Difficult?"
https://www.continentalnewsservice.com/ … res22.html
Based on your knowledge level for the subjects here, I can easily believe you have no idea what it is like to be a syndicated newspaper columnist or what it means. You probably don't have any idea what goes with it. What a shame.
Only you have the knowledge for the subjects here, Mike. Don't pay any attention to those who aren't enablers. You an Trump are stable geniuses, and in a "class' all your own.
Still at it, eh?
As a newspaper editor, I spent years buying, editing and publishing newspapers columns from reputable syndicates.
No newspaper I know ever published a thing from something called "Continental News Service". Nor did we ever hear about it.
Based on its tiny and broken down website, I'm not surprised.
Get ready to be bombarded with vague insults from those that like to come and play when a bully is on the playground. If it weren't so sad it would be comical.
I don't believe Mike is really a bully, Shar.
"Bully", "sad" and "comical" sound like you want to pick a fight with someone here.
Is it one of us or all three of us?
You got banned once before when you called me bully, vile and other foul names. I guess you are ready to get banned again.
I have made no comments in your direction in months. Yet you jump in out of the blue to call me bully and comical. That's truly "sad".
Be my guest if you want to report my comment. Actually I was being sarcastic. But, I ould use a break if you have some sort of pull to ban me? have at it... I think you have used great restraint in ignoring my comments.
Yeah, I remember Randy got banned a few months ago for stalking “anonymous” hubbers and calling them non-persons.
Guess it works cause I haven’t seen him do it on the forum since.
But don’t worry Sharlee, he’d rather try to control you with threats first, God forbid he were to develop a thick skin, which you obviously have after seeing what they do to you.
The shadow turtle strikes again! Give it your best shot. You're sounding like a broken record.
It well seems some here would rather control who posts here. And some even feel they can dish up vague threats of having me ban.
I have become accustomed to insults. What I have a hard time with is figuring out some of their thought processes. Many here just have no respect for anyone else's views. And the ones that do respect other's views get blasted quickly. They start building a wall, a thick wall constructed with nothing but groupthink.
Maybe this excerpt from
https://brainhealth.utdallas.edu/starti … developme/
will help you figure out their thought processes, Sharlee.
“Findings show study participants who began using marijuana at the age of 16 or younger demonstrated brain variations that indicate arrested brain development in the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for judgment, reasoning and complex thinking. Individuals who started using marijuana after age 16 showed the opposite effect and demonstrated signs of accelerated brain aging.”
“Science has shown us that changes in the brain occurring during adolescence are complex. Our findings suggest that the timing of cannabis use can result in very disparate patterns of effects,” explained Francesca Filbey, Ph.D., principal investigator and Bert Moore Chair of Behavioral and Brain Sciences at the Center for BrainHealth.“Not only did age of use impact the brain changes but the amount of cannabis used also influenced the extent of altered brain maturation.”
I can show you 150 studies that support these findings - this is not a whim, these are scientifically proven and accepted facts.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how these studies apply to certain persons’ thought processes.
You all are having a good time bad mouthing people while claiming you are taking the high road. Besides, I think Randy has that road covered (sorry Randy, lol) Ironic. Have fun.
Perhaps we could get a job working on the border as we are already experienced in building imaginary walls? How about a reference, Shar ?
Well just so happens I will be headed for the winter to the fun side of the wall. Maybe I could give you a reference. Can you install doors? Like a great big fabulous gold door the biggest strongest door ever made?
On the serious side. Do you take offense in my view that many do not respect other's views? And is it not true the troops do a circle around someone how does not share their view, and sometimes blast them?
And in regards to groupthink, you don't find it pretty thick on the HP political forum?
Not trying to be disagreeable, but I would like to know your true opinion on the matter.
What you term "groupthink" can be applied to both sides of the arguments, Shar. Or do you think it's just the left who defend other posters?
I just consider it healthy debate until someone suddenly gets sensitive when another disagrees with their opinion.
What do you consider “sensitive?” Calling hubbers non-persons when they show you wrong, changing the subject when you don’t have a leg to stand on, misrepresenting what was said by your opposition, condescending comments and trying to demean the messenger of differing opinions from yours? Then that’s all things you do when another disagrees with your opinion. Evidently all that’s what you consider healthy debate!
Randy, your response in regard to Groupthink has pointed out a much-needed truth. Although, at times debate here can get rough. I think I for one will take the time to take care of what I post. Perhaps not get personal with my responses, and not respond to comments that get too personal.
Cool Shar, we all can do better trying to communicate with each other during this difficult time for our country.
Yes Randy, never before do we need to keep communication open and try to respect each other views. The divide has never been this deep, and we have all dug in. Perhaps we need to consider we all have diverse personalities, and many diverse interests other than political interests. In otherwise "Hey he or she may not be all that bad just due to their political views"... LOL
I'll take comical but I don't think any of us are a bully or sad. ;-)
Makes sense someone who left the newspaper world in 1996 would not hear of CNS...it started in 2000.
I wondered how this happened. Then I realized it all started when I cited two articles, one the NYT and the other National Review to prove that the mainstream media is biased against President Donald Trump.
Instead of trying to controvert my argument, the rebuttal is to dig up a linked in page I haven't touched in over 20 years and attack my journalistic credentials.
I was attacked on a personal level, my employer was attacked on a personal level. I know why.
I won the argument. I suppose no proof could be provided to show I'm wrong, so, the only thing left was a personal attack.
Typical move by those suffering with advanced TDS.
Since no proof was provided that I was wrong. I HAVE to declare a debating victory. Since you can't attack my argument and only attack me on a personal level, I've WON the argument.
So, I suppose I've clearly established that President Donald Trump is treated extremely unfair by the mainstream media.
I know this, because the only thing others have on the topic is personal attacks.
Sometimes, it's just too easy.
No doubt. You're always the winner in your mind, Mike. Reminds me of someone else you admire....
And pray tell, instead of spending all your comments maligning people and our president, who, besides pot smugglers who wear that tag as a badge of honor, is it that you admire Randy among Presidential candidates? Hiliary?
Anyone running against your role model, turtle.
Thanks Mike. It is nice to have someone who can post a viewpoint and back it up with a reference and examples. I remember CNN's first broadcast in 1980. They did not start out this way. They have changed the most in the last 20 years IMO to what we have now, and so many have got on the liberal side of the scale as well. Will they change any time soon?
Who do you watch/listen too, Bill? I've asked you this several times. And your favorite journalist on the agenda?
Should be easy....and predictable.
I believe it all started during the Clinton Administration when they earned the title "Clinton News Network."
They do provide some stories that have a degree of balance, but too many that don't. The NYT will now just plain make stuff up. It's unreal. When I was in journalism school, I remember professors all thought the NYT was such a great example to follow.
That's not the case any longer.
So, liberals/Democrat party have the print media. The conservatives have talk radio and the top cable shows in media.
President George W. Bush got treated very unfairly by the American media. I like how President Donald Trump fights back against them. When he says something is fake news, with a little work, you can see how it's fake news.
I hope it really shakes things up for the better.
I appreciate your reply and "spot on" take on how the media has changed in recent years. I agree with you that it started with the Clinton Administration, and I believe it got much worse while Obama was president (I voted for him his first term)
President Trump did the right thing by calling them out, and hopefully the main stream media will be more objective and less partisan this decade.
You got lobbying calls that labeled Obama with vile names? How does that happen? A lobbyist comes begging and starts by calling names? Doesn't sound like a very effective tactic.
Yes, there were nasty comments about Obama. But those about Trump are a thousand times more frequent - that was the point.
Fighting his socialistic plans is hardly in the same basket as name calling and false accusations (remember the FBI, diligently searching for Trumps collusion with Putin and finding nothing?).
I'll say it again. The name calling was loud and clear with Obummer, Obama Bin Laden, NoBama, Odumbass, Mr Potato Head, etc, etc., Where did I get all these? And, let's not forget the Trump makes nasty comments about others on a daily basis. So we should just allow him to do so without fighting back due to reference for our king??? We've been through this before Dan.
"It's not his fault that he didn't give the R's the same kind of ammunition that Trump does."
Oh lordy lordy . . . " No sarcasm intended, a more true statement is seldom seen in these forums.
I don't recall Obama being in a scandal almost daily or telling over 10,000 lies in his first two years in office either.
I don't recall Obama calling people insulting names like a school child either.
I don't recall Obama kissing up to Putin and other murderous bastards or admitting he was in love with them.
I can go on, but you 'll deny everything anyway as you usually do,
Thanks for posting some much needed fact based comment to this discussion "wilderness." Appreciate your opinions.
And, why would you take offense to someone stating some R's seem be okay with child abuse...some are. At any rate, people talk to lobbyists, they call people names. And no, the lobbyist says "Obamacare" And the insults fly. This isn't that hard..later.
"Some R's seem okay with child abuse."
This from a party that has legalized (In NY and VA) killing children in the birth canal about to be born. If you want to talk about child abuse...
It seems that recent political forum pis$ing contests all share one particular participant.
Just an observation. :-)
Yep, a self proclaimed genius with no one worthy of interacting with. Give me a break!
Only one? I see many of the same people on most threads? Funny you only notice one? I would surmise you would hope to see a few not post? How boring would that be, so many just bumping into each other with the same opinion?
I don't know what you are talking abpit? It's kind of hard to know? When every sentence is a question? I gather you think I don't want someone to post? I don't know where you get that, but okay?
I didn't want to mention all of the question marks, Sandy. I'd get accused of being a punctuation stickler, or of nitpicking on a writer's site. Go figure!
There is some interesting psychology behind the practice of routinely phrasing statements as questions. It's more common in speaking than in writing, though. Maybe she is from the San Fernando Valley?
"In reality Randy, all I see on these threads is you and your cronies attacking every one personally. "
Bill, I attempted to have an actual legitimate conversation/debate with you. However, you chose to cop out by stating I was attacking you as a person anytime I disagreed with you in the slightest bit. I guess that can be an effective defense mechanism, but I'd rather read what others have to say, and learn along the way, as opposed to taking offense and shutting down anytime there's a disagreement.
I feel like I'm on an episode of Candid Camera. Remember that one?
Go back and read your replies to me and also read what Valeant posted. Do I have to copy and paste it for you?
You post rhetoric that has led to violence against Americans, and then claim that as an attack against you when we call you out on it. Instead of playing the victim, try for a better understanding of why you should move on from reposting something that has led to violent acts being committed.
Meanwhile the NYT reports Bolton says Trump tied Ukraine aid to inquires he sought in his new book. No shit! I'm shocked! Are you?
The truth is going to come out one way or another. The GOP senators who vote against witnesses will suffer the consequences in November. Chief As$ kisser Lindsay Graham is already in trouble in his state, polling neck-to-neck with his Democratic challenger, and Mitch McConnell's approval rating in Kentucky is pretty dismal.
It has been a while since I saw a thread turn this snarky.
Where have you been the last few years, Gus? A new guy shows up and expects to have his opinion accepted just because he listens to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh?
We already have enough of these people on the forums, and they actually write something on this site. What Val said...
No Randy, not what you said, and especially not what Val said. Critical and forceful rebuttal is one thing, pure snarkiness, denigration, and 'who are you and you don't belong here' attacks are another.
I have seen a lot of the former, they are par for a political discussion forum, but I am always hopeful this HP forum doesn't adopt the latter as the par.
If you're going to come at me, try and do it accurately, buddy.
Wondering the motivations of someone who hasn't posted something being on the forums of a publishing site, when there is a preponderance of false profiles posting pro-Trump propaganda seems more than relevant in these times.
Okay, I will try to be accurate. My primary, almost exclusive reason for being here is for these forums. I have been here more than a few years, but until fairly recently I hadn't published anything new for years. I was only here for the forums.
Should I not be? Am I not just as entitled as regular 'real' writers?
And what does whether one publishes or not have to do with forum participation? If "Bill" had espoused opinions that agreed with yours, would you have still challenged his right to be here?
Shouldn't attacking the message be enough? How many times did you challenge "Jake's" credentials to post in these forums?
Was that any more accurate?
I've gone to most people's profiles who post here. I could tell you that Wesman is the guitar guy, ahorseback loves poetry as examples. And yes, I noted Jake's status on the far-left after some of his more ludicrous Trump-bashing posts.
Like I noted, after the 2016 election that saw numerous fake profiles created on social media sites, it's a reasonable question to ask when someone comes here with no written work to post far-right, pro-trump propaganda.
I assume you like unknown posters who do not write on this site who dive into political forums as if they have some sort of privilege to denigrate the opinions of veteran writers.
Fee free to think so. No one is stopping you, as usual.
What part of being a veteran writer validates one's authority and credibility as a political commentator? Are you really putting up a "Writer's Only" fence around these forums? Or will you add qualifiers like 1, or 5, or 50 articles to enter?
If I write 20 recipe articles will I be more authoritative in these political forums because I wrote about food? Will I then own the privilege to denigrate someone's political opinion?
Of course, you can guess my answers to all of those questions, but I thought it would be more polite to ask than declare.
As to whether I like what someone says, no one twists my arm to take them seriously, or even address them.
Yes Gus...you are not supposed to accept someone else's opinion. They are only allowed to agree.
Anyone who thinks Fox News is fair and balanced is always suspect in my opinion.
Carry on with your feelings of being attacked if it makes you feel better, Bill.
"We already have enough of these people on the forums"
Randy, Would you prefer I get lost due to leaning to the right? This statement is very revealing. Naturally, anyone can see there are more leaning left users on this Political forum. But, it is also very apparent there are about 10 people that actually participate, leaving comments.
It's clear, many here would prefer to be rid of any users that don't agree with there opinions. Maybe, it would be wise for those that have disdain for any opposite opinions to just ignore those comments and don't reply.
Would this not make better sense than insulting others due to their opinion?
When yet another Trump extremist starts posting "the media is the enemy of the people," then snarky is being nice.
Journalists are assaulted and murdered worldwide and even in the U.S. on a regular basis for doing their jobs.
At least Trump shut up about "enemy of the people" after the Maryland newspaper shootings and assaults on journalists at Trump speeches. But some people keep it going.
So yes, it's snarky. But the lack of respect is well deserved.
Blame me GA, so many are, might as well get on the train.LOL!
In an article I'm reading about Trump threatening Schiff via Twitter today, this question was asked simply...Do you Support the Articles of Impeachment?
550,896 votes. 59% - yes, 41% - no
If Bolton gets called to testify, it's going to be hard for Senators to let Trump escape his abuses of power.
I would say that the charge of abuse of power will be very difficult to prove. I don't see where President Donald Trump has done anything that many previous president have also done. MANY presidents have withheld documents and claimed executive privilege.
If the Democrats really thought President Donald Trump was abusing his power by claiming executive privilege, why didn't they take their case to the Supreme Court?
It's their job to decide such matters.
[Raising hand to put in her two cents]
I take a live-and-let-live attitude. If some dude wants to come here and post, who cares? He could be legit or he could be a paid propagandist. I have no way of knowing. Just go after the substance of his posts like you would any other poster of right-wing nonsense and it will work itself out in the end.
I'm like GA. I haven't written any new articles in years and just come here to argue politics. What's the big deal?
"Just go after the substance of his posts like you would any other poster of right-wing nonsense and it will work itself out in the end."
I agree with you, but from my perspective, I would switch the term "right-wing" with liberal.
It looks like you are all ganging up on Randy now. Once again, I attempted to have a legitimate conversation here. It proved impossible with the person involved. I attacked no one, but we see the true colors come out now when you get a chance to pile up on someone else.
Yeah. It's comical; from the beginning. I know how it started: with a fuzzy claim that I hurled a personal insult, and when I asked what that insult was, he couldn't even tell me. That's because the insult was disagreeing with him. I even said he was probably a good guy. Then, everyone used this as a springboard to be holier than thou, agreeing with the guy that I, along with Valient somehow insulted him. You jumped on that bandwagon without ever saying what it was I did. And, I thought our interactions in the past had been respectable. Oh well.
I too am weary of being accused of insulting someone by simply disagreeing with them. I suppose they're following their role model's lead. Poor sensitive people! It just breaks my damn heart!
To further confuse things, I am not sure that I addressed you in this Thread? I certainly have been following all the back and forth, and got a bit into the fray with one of the persons involved, and he pretty much vaguely threatened to have me banned. If I insulted you in any respect I apologize. I have read through the thread and only found the one post to you. The one you responded to.
I have never found you to be unpleasant or argumentive. As you said you get your point across and have been respectful in doing so.
You didn't specifically address me. I assumed I was included in your comments since this did kind of start with a conversation I was having with Bill S. If I wasn't included in your comments, then I appreciate it. Bill is the only one who called me out and said I attacked him personally. I never got an explanation for that one, though I give up on caring. It is hard to keep score. I thought we were having a legitimate discussion.
I will get in trouble for this... But, it's my opinion. You have not exhibited the traits I was referring to in my groupthink comment.
Randy's recent comment is very telling, it simply gets to the problem, names it, and actually could work to help solve the problem,
"What you term "groupthink" can be applied to both sides of the arguments, Shar. "
I appreciate your clarification and agree with Randy's comment. I try to take a step back, and re-evaluate things when it looks like people are "ganging up on a person." I certainly see it from both sides here on Hubpages.
My main reasons for coming here are to attempt to understand where others are coming from, to learn some things that I cannot learn from the media, and to flesh out my own views on matters. This is fun for me. At the same time, I don't mind things getting a bit heated, as I believe you don't entirely also. But, I do make a point to not be the one to start hurling personal insults, which is why I genuinely wanted to know what Bill considered a personal insult from me. Yet, I'm far from perfect, and will sling some insults when I feel like I'm being attacked..(i.e. "typical libtard response," etc.) These types of comments, which do come from both sides, do nothing to advance a debate. I'm not going to back down though...it's just not in my nature.
Plus, I despise the type of thinking, where just because someone may support single-payer healthcare, this means they also must want to come take everyone's guns. In the real world, I don't think individuals often think along these lines (though I know some do). However, US politicians are forced to look at matters in that way, in order to get the votes in the primaries. The media, and politicians on both sides, also perpetuate these stereotypes. In fact, it seems clear that some have come to rely on dividing the public and making the "other side" out to be one massive brain that all thinks and behaves in one particular way. It's dehumanizing and . This is where I think more parties, or something other than the first past the post electoral system would be helpful.
Okay..kind of ran the gamut there, but I think these things are all interlinked.
I feel you have expressed your feelings well, and I find it sensible, and relevant to the times we live in. Although it is clear many have come to a crossroads, and just want more from our representatives that we send to Washington. Many are have grown tired of the "stereotypes".
Thanks. You summed it up well. Americans should not have to agree on every specific, in order to come together for the common goal of change and improvement. I know this is not likely to go over well with you, but I think this is the fatal flaw of our current President. He only makes attempts to drive divisions, instead of heal them.
America allows us to have all that comes with having the right to question or government, and vote for change when necessary. I my opinion that's one big reason Trump won in 2016. We are so lucky to have this form of freedom. This past election caused a great divide, which as a rule does not happen frequently. I think this is why we as a society just can't handle one another's opinions. We see almost a 50 - 50 divide, and each side has the power of many people that supports their beliefs. Each side has dug in like no time before. This could be due to the power of the numbers that this divide has offered us.
I can't argue the Flaws of the President. You see I am a person that really digs in deep on research, and I keep up with what Trump does on a daily bases. Thorugh his tenure I have naturally witnessed his flaws, but I have also witnessed many positive accomplishments. I have noted him solving many long-standing problems. I consider above all his job performance.
Please now, I can understand your feelings, and can differently understand how you have formed
your opinion in regards to the president.
And I cannot argue your support for the President, despite the flaws, which are too me, glaringly disqualifying of a President. Indeed, it is good that we both have the right to our opinions and our votes.
"We see almost a 50 - 50 divide, and each side has the power of many people that supports their beliefs. Each side has dug in like no time before. This could be due to the power of the numbers that this divide has offered us."
While there are a couple major issues where this is true, i.e. abortion, I also think this is where the media, and politicians on both sides, exaggerate our differences for self-serving purposes. When we sit down, and look at the issues, minus the stereotypes and emotion, I argue that many Americans are are not as far off from each other as they want us to think. But, when "leaders" call the "other side" losers, etc. these points of agreements are rarely acknowledged.
Did you all see Ken Starr yesterday? OMG, he was so boring I could barely stay awake. And when I did manage to focus on his words, I would end up laughing hysterically. Someone on TV said it perfectly. "Does Ken Starr remember he is Ken Starr?"
Oh, the irony was just TOO much!
It appears that Mitch will succeed in denying witnesses, counter to the wishes of the vast majority of Americans. The president will not be exonerated and the full truth will not be known. Yet.
Bolton's book will come out. Other information will emerge. In the meantime, our lying, corrupt president will be emboldened and will continue to extort other countries for his own personal benefit. He will, once again, encourage foreign countries to interfere in our election.
He will move forward loosening protections against corruption so he can continue to line his pockets through illegal means with even less chance of consequences.
Good job, people. Thumbs up! Your corruption fighter is winning.I expect when a Democrat president behaves similarly you will be just as supportive of Dershowitz's position, just as opposed to impeachment proceedings as you have been in this case, just as opposed to hearing witnesses as some of you currently are, and just as content to watch a president use his power to lie, coerce, bribe, and bully.
Our future looks so bright! Be proud of your contribution to it.
Maybe there is still a glimmer of hope on this, but I'm not holding my breath. Unfortunately, you are right on the money as far as the implications of this. And, this is our corruption-fighting President. I guess he fights corruption, if it isn't his own...then he covers it up and just tells everyone that is what he is doing.
How do you figure he won't be exonerated? There are only two choices (I think) - guilty or innocent - do you expect a guilty verdict?
A "not guilty" without a fair and proper trial will not be viewed as exoneration by most people.
Because the majority of people--even Republicans--want to hear from Bolton. There will always be a stain on Trump's presidency if Mitch succeeds in the cover up.
Wouldn't you like to hear what he knows, Dan?
The cover-up is almost over. This particular one, at any rate. There will be more of course. Trump got away with his obstructing justice during the Mueller probe, and now once again, he escapes any harm by extorting Ukraine and stonewalling cogressa in the same manner.
I'll wager there are some people who are delighted with his duplicity and want him to keep it up. Wonderful patriots they are!
The last remedy will be to boot the cowardly GOP senators out of office for ignoring their oath of office and defying the will.of the people.
Of course, the Don has now been given free reign to.bribe foreign governments to interfere in the election.
Yep, you patriots should be super proud of what you have supported and enabled for three years now. Excellent work!
A newly released document from the OMB reveals Trump was leveraging the Ukraine in early June. This backs up Bolton's claim and puts the lie to Trumps claim. No big surprise to anyone who isn't an enabler for his criminal activity.
Tump stonewalled the release of this document, but the Freedom of Information Act apparently has more power than Congress to get this info.
Keep watching as this is only the tip if the iceberg. Let the criminal escape, my fellow patriots. You're making Putin happy you know...
I really do think that how this played out will hurt the R's in November. The average voter seems to be fed up with Trump's clear cover ups...even in the MidWest.
Do you find it comical that virtually all liberals think the impeachment fiasco will hurt Republicans and all Republicans think it will hurt Democrats?
I do. "The world thinks as I do" is alive and well in our country.
Sadly, the Republicans are around 34% of the population at this point. It really doesn't help they covered up for Trump in the Senate either.
The only fiasco was in the Senate, not the House. Voting to not seek the truth runs parallel with Trumps whole philosophy during his term.
Hopefully this is his last!
"Voting to not seek the truth runs parallel with Trumps whole philosophy during his term."
You're saying House Democrats run parallel with Trump? Because they sure weren't interested in truth!
Nope, the House did their duty, despite, despite Trump's obstructing them all of the way. They invited him to put up a defense in the House, but apparently he didn't have one.
The Senate was never going to convict him, as we all knew. They even went so far as to be the first Senate trial in history to not have witnesses and evidence. But then, they were terrified of new documents and witnesses being allowed.
History will not be kind to those who shirked their duty. Of course, King Donald may change history to suit him.
I watched the trial, and I saw the House present both 'evidence' and witness testimony.
Indeed, but this was the first Senate Impeachment trial in history to have no new witnesses and documents, Gus. What does this tell you when they could get them easy enough?
And what part of a "search for the truth " can you point to in the Senate trial since they wanted no new evidence to be seen or heard?
Haven't you asked that last question before? I am sure I answered it—a couple of times. Pay attention. ;-)
You did? Did you point to an example with no witnesses? I missed it, I suppose.
Did you miss it more than once? You can look, I already have.
Sure is some truth to seeing things how we want to seem them. However, I am basing my statement on things I've heard and read from people in my area. I certainly don't think the world sees things as I do though. In fact, I'd be worried about myself if my views lined up with the majority of the world's views.
I have to disagree. In my opinion, more are feeling benefits in their lives from Trump's presidency. And many American's just want a president that gets things done. A few days ago I posted a list of how Trump's presidency has affected my life and those in my close circle. Some Dems will be voting for Trump just due to his job performance. One must take into consideration and realize Trump has made some very positive changes that affect many Americans personally. Not sure many would cut their nose off to spite their face, and opt to put in a Dem with progressive ideas that could provide a very be iffy future for America...
Yup. This is just opinion at this point. I don't think it will ever be truly known until after November. I'm also speaking of voters that are middle of the road that wouldn't see voting for a Dem as cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
Did you see Graham promising to continue the investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden? I once admired him before McCain died, but then he became simply another ass kisser for Trump.
It's true, Trump corrupts everyone around him unless they escape from his orbit. Namely, Bolton, Kelly, and all the others who have served under him saw the light and got the hell out.
it'll be funny to watch and hear from those who refused to hear the Truth from Bolton when his book comes out. Can you imagine their excuses? "Well, we didn't see all of the evidence!"
Cretins, the lot of them.
Baby Lindsay - watch his eyes when he goes on one of his Trump-defending screeds. The man is terrified. What a cowardly tool.
And they follow a dude who cannot even get a Super Bowl congratulations correct. He may be still be President, but he's also still a no-nothing bully. You'd think they could have at least found a smarter idol. You know the Washington R's would have preferred one, but this is what their voters gave them. That's kind of funny.
He mirrors his enablers, Don. That's why they like him so much.
They know the truth. Now they have a couple day distraction from Trump's corruption and ignorance. And, at least some of them, are still behaving exactly like him of course.
You have a point there. The next election will be very telling of the future, and what the people really want for that future.
As I predicted when I began this thread, Moscow Mitch got his way with the Senate Republicans....all except the for one honest man in their midst, Mitt Romney.
Now we can sit back and see the truth come to light as it wasn't allowed to in the Senate trial. Bolton will speak, the documents will come out, and all will see what a POS they have as a POTUS.
I hope his enablers are very proud of standing up for a person who could care less about their welfare or his oath of office.
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Today we witnessed Nacey Pelosi, and Jerry Nader as well as every Dem that stood and spoke lying in "Our House". They spoke of Founding Father "... Were our Founding Fathers known for lying in Our House? Each Democrat that spoke in this hearing quoted lie after lie, none of their...
by Don W 2 years ago
David Holmes has provided evidence that indicates Trump's motives for requesting the leader of Ukraine investigate Biden's son:"An official from the United States Embassy in Kiev confirmed to House impeachment investigators on Friday that he had overheard a call between President Trump and a...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
Throughout the last three years, we've seen political maneuvering like never before - the Democrats have spent the entire time trying to undo an election, find a crime where one didn't exist, slander and demonize the President, go after anyone who was associated with the Trump campaign or...
by Randy Godwin 2 years ago
As the meaning of a trial is a "search for the truth," do you consider the Republican Senators voting to deny new witnesses and documents as Searching for the truth? If so, then why?
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
There have been deals floating around on "witness trades" - the Democrats want Bolton and the Republicans want Hunter Biden. The Democrats want Mulvaney and the Republicans want Eric Ciarmella. The list continues, but it's not necessary to list everyone.The bottom line is that...
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Today Adam Schiff stood before our Senate and told a long ongoing story. A story that he could not prove. Yet he was allowed to go on and on telling his story. Schiff used all the drama he could muster. He even had the audacity to provide videos of witnesses that testified in the House...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|