Political Roundtable Part XXX

[pancakes3]

KBJ is a nothing of a story. She should be confirmed with no more controversy than Gorsuch, and Gorsuch wrote that contraception destroys fertilized eggs (uh, it doesn't). stoking fears that KBJ is some sort of neo-black panther who's facilitating child trafficking is slander. the only reason she's in the news cycle is so that Fox doesn't have to continue to run stories on the Ukrainian war where their stars keep sticking their foot in their mouths re: Putin.

Nobody cared about SCOTUS nominations prior to Garland's failed nomination and now it's a circus. Kagan was confirmed 63-37. Sotomayor 68-31. Alito 58-42. Roberts 78-22. Breyer 87-9, and RBG 96-3. The last SCOTUS nominee that even came close to not being confirmed was Coke-Can Clarence at 52-48. This is because (a) Republicans love politicizing the Court; and (b) Republicans can't help but nominate nutjobs.

Prior to Garland, the last 3 failed nominations were all Republican nominations: Robert Bork, G. Harrold Carswell, and Clement Haynsworth.

Carswell and Haynsworth were both Nixon nominations, and both failed because they wrote opinions in support of segregation, like upholding the decision of an entire county to shut down their public schools rather than integrate. This led to Nixon nominating Harry Blackmun, who happened to be the author of the Roe decision.

Bork's nomination in 1987, 20 years after the civils rights act, failed on a double whammy because he was on the record as criticizing the civil rights act not only racist beliefs(segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.), but also sexist beliefs (equal pay, right to privacy, etc.)

Like, sorry, but these guys are freaks. There are 2 justices on this court that have credible accusations of sexual assault. ACB is in a cult that preaches religious obedience of the wife to the husband. Even Gorsuch, he actually believes that contraception destroys a fertilized egg, and that a fertilized egg means something, in a moral/soul context. The influences of Church in the State are undeniable. These are not the best and brightest, but they are the ones who have proven to be most doggedly dogmatic to the Republican (FedSoc) agenda of reversing Roe, protect corporate interests, and expand executive power.

It's not to say all republican judges are rapists, or religious wackjobs. But the names that keep cropping up on the FedSoc list of nominees certainly are. And this is all for a reason - the last thing that capital R republicans want is another Blackmun, who can't be controlled, and actually judges things based on the merits and a neutral, unbiased opinion on law.

I would be appalled if it came out that a Dem candidate had sexual assault allegations, and would absolutely demand that a different candidate be found. I am similarly appalled when a Republican candidate does. This turnabout simply doesn't exist for Republicans, and THAT to me is the frustrating thing. THAT is why I have to laugh when Nate or Popper or any number of other Republicans poke their heads in here and say "Oh it's never civil discourse with you people."

Ok, bro. How about you just take more than 2 seconds to evaluate the state of events before just digging your heels in along party lines out of default.

[Pointgod]

After 10 or 12 years of posting here I'm reticent to add to the futility. My blood pressure has been manageable since I stopped. I find it fascinating that a thread where everyone that posts is in agreement, on an important subject like politics, can offer any morsel of enlightenment or understanding in the complex world we live in. It would seem to me that intelligent people would reach out to those that have differing viewpoints. Isn't that the only way that we can become more understanding of the world and wiser of its operation? I see none of that on this thread. It scares me for our future that dissenting opinions are not only not welcome on D controlled social media (where most ignorant Americans receive their news) but are literally censored so as to advance a narrative that serves the super rich and selfish elite.

The SC nominee can't define what a female is (although the question was presented as to what a women is, -- not sure if the distinction makes a difference). High school freshmen biology students, much less Ivy League law school graduates and SC nominees, should know the obvious answer to that question.

The SC nominee was asked and doesn't know when life begins. Again, any high school biology student knows the answer to that question.

What gives? Can you guys answer these simple questions and do you guys solicit dissenting opinions so that you may become better informed and wiser?

Genuinely curious what Conservative view points that offer enlightenment are missing from this thread? You could have blessed this thread with your enlightenment, but instead chose to lie about social media censorship and speak dismissively of a Supreme Court nominee because she refused to answer irrelevant questions that had nothing to do with her qualifications, record or temperament.

Please share your views that you believe will make us wiser.

[popper]

Thanks to all who responded to my post. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before another conservative (hopefully younger and more energetic than I) drops in to the conversation. Ten years of this stuff has worn me out,

[Pointgod]

Thanks to all who responded to my post. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before another conservative (hopefully younger and more energetic than I) drops in to the conversation. Ten years of this stuff has worn me out,

I was being serious I’m genuinely curious to see what perspective you want to share. I’m not even trying to be snarky. I believe I have a good perspective of the Conservative view point, but I’m always happy to be proven wrong.

[Ruzious]

Thanks to all who responded to my post. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before another conservative (hopefully younger and more energetic than I) drops in to the conversation. Ten years of this stuff has worn me out,

Times have changed. Back in the day, my Political Science teacher at the University of Maryland was Donald Devine - who was a key advisor to Ronald Reagan and head of the OPM. I knew his leanings, but I thought he was great. That was when both parties mainly stood by their fundamentals - and Republican and Conservative pretty much meant the same thing. There was always some hostility between Dems and Reps, but there was respect. I never thought Reps were inherently bad people. Now... it's hard to give the benefit of the doubt. My inclination is they are almost like a lower species - unless they prove otherwise, because Republican leaders are - for the most part - horrible people. Just look at how they treated Liz Cheney and others who dare to speak out - and I was never a fan of hers for her political views, but she's what Conservatives and Republicans used to be - except for being female. It's a sad situation.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=PS0JmluCp2z789xHHXuLcw&s=19

Read on Twitter

?t=pwaMVyL8-WBSGgsxSCikZQ&s=19

Read on Twitter

?t=cPfchODkcwghn5aI2imqTw&s=19

[doclinkin]

It would seem to me that intelligent people would reach out to those that have differing viewpoints. Isn't that the only way that we can become more understanding of the world and wiser of its operation?

For what its worth I agree with this half of the post. I'm diehard lefty. Union guy. Raised in communal housing. Marched for Nuclear disarmament and organized protests when in middle school. I'll knock Bernie for the political expedience of his silence on NRA and gun control issues, even while I understand he wouldn't have stayed in office if he were vocal on the issue. So I'm left of Bernie.

That said I'm with others in this thread in that I can understand the logic behind various conservative viewpoints, but really don't understand how the Right got so thoroughly coopted by the last resident of the White House. To the point where republicans positions also got flipped like pancakes. That the party of Ronald Reagan was suddenly arguing Russian talking points, in support of a bad hairpiece who failed at business. Who was immoral in his personal life, and destructive to our basic American values when in office.

What values do republicans stand for now? Can we list the core few, just so we know what we are disagreeing about? Because it is not about KBJ being cautious with her words when being grilled by hostile parties.

[pancakes3]

the republican party, and really any conservative party is intrinsically one that is reactionary to new policies, which is fine. there should be a tempered check on "progress" because not all new things are also good. so i'm willing to concede that the republican party doesn't have "ideals" per se, other than to counter whatever the progressives want.

the problem is that instead of adopting the position that republicans are the restrained path forward, everything is binary and nothing new/liberal can ever be good. everything is rooted in tradition and originalism with no thought as to how to move forward as a nation. centrists are already incrementalists. the republican party has no role, except for the one they artificially crafted for themselves - complete nullifcation of dem platforms.

climate change is now climate denial. mask mandates and vaccines have to be theatrics, even though it's completely a nonpartisan issue.

not to mention that in order to control the narrative, big R republicans have shifted the goal posts so much, and done such a good job with their news compatriots, that the actual issues that all americans are facing - rising costs of living across the board - is being diluted by red herrings - CRT, transphobia, etc.

even the conversation about costs isn't related to housing costs, education costs, healthcare, childcare, etc. - ya know, what 75% of our budget actually goes to. it's about gas prices. it has to be gas prices. it can't be that rent is too damn high, or college tuition has 10x'ed n cost over the past 50 years. or that it's insane how we're the only industrialized nation that doesn't have universal healthcare. like, even totalitarian nations like Russia/China have universal healthcare.

so when you ask guys like popper and nate what they actually want to talk about, there's nothing for them to say. all of the information they have access to is how to tear down dem ideas. there is nothing to offer, other than platitudes like "secure the border" and "America first"

[popper]

Thanks to all who responded to my post. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before another conservative (hopefully younger and more energetic than I) drops in to the conversation. Ten years of this stuff has worn me out,

I was being serious I’m genuinely curious to see what perspective you want to share. I’m not even trying to be snarky. I believe I have a good perspective of the Conservative view point, but I’m always happy to be proven wrong.

I'm okay with not prolonging my interference in this thread but since you asked nicely I'll try to provide more context. The nominee will be confirmed no matter what so I understand her economy in just saying buzz off. The SC issue I raised was that I think it's silly to evade simple questions like "define the word women." The stupid senator's question should have been "define what a female is." Zonk is right I think that the definition of a women is in modern times a social construct. Had the question been posed correctly there's no reason to evade it. She could have simply said "senator if your asking me what a female is then I'll give you a laypersons response, reserving the right to alter it if it's ever an issue before the court. A female is one that has a different chromosome mix than that of a male or, a female is one that has different plumbing as that of a male or, a female is one that can bear children. No one cares if she gets if exactly right.

The question regarding when life begins is interesting. It can be answered in several ways I'm sure but she could have just said something like "my layperson's response is if it consumes and processes nutrients it's alive and I reserve the right to alter .......or, life begins at conception but there is, or may be, a distinction between human life and personhood as understood in law. Again I don't care about her exact answer but I would like to know how she or any other SC nominee processes important questions.

What if she were asked "assume there is no governing law; what would you tell an 8 year old child that just got a bunny rabbit and wants to beat it to death with baseball bat."

[popper]

is it trolling to drop into a thread like this, throw out wild accusations about censorship and spread white wing conspiracy talking points, stir up a bunch of discussion and then not respond to any of it?

I'm trying to respond but every time I get in to the fourth or fifth paragraph an ad pops up and won't allow me to continue. So I'll respond in pieces.

[popper]

What would she tell the child about the rabbit? I'd like to know.

Regarding my comments about soliciting political opinions that differ from the prevalent political orthodoxy on this thread my purpose is selfish. Although it's rare that I post anymore, I do read it often, and frankly the thread is boring without robust political opposition. Not sure how you solicit that but maybe go on the general thread or something.

There are a huge number of meaty issues that are not addressed here that are important for the country. I'd appreciate it if you would address them. Again, ten years is enough for me. For instance;

Delve in to the chronology of events surrounding Hunter Biden's laptop from the point it was authenticated by the NY Post before the election to last weeks authentification by the NY Times (many months after the election). Why, without evidence did 50 ex-intelligence executives say that it had all the signs of Russian disinformation? At least one poll showed that the election may have turned out differently had voters known that Hunter was vacuuming up cash in Moscow, Ukraine and other foreign countries.

Why did Facebook and Twitter censor any mention of the authenticated laptop until after the election?

I could go on and on but I'm tired. Best to you all.

[Pointgod]

Thanks to all who responded to my post. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before another conservative (hopefully younger and more energetic than I) drops in to the conversation. Ten years of this stuff has worn me out,

I was being serious I’m genuinely curious to see what perspective you want to share. I’m not even trying to be snarky. I believe I have a good perspective of the Conservative view point, but I’m always happy to be proven wrong.

I'm okay with not prolonging my interference in this thread but since you asked nicely I'll try to provide more context. The nominee will be confirmed no matter what so I understand her economy in just saying buzz off. The SC issue I raised was that I think it's silly to evade simple questions like "define the word women." The stupid senator's question should have been "define what a female is." Zonk is right I think that the definition of a women is in modern times a social construct. Had the question been posed correctly there's no reason to evade it. She could have simply said "senator if your asking me what a female is then I'll give you a laypersons response, reserving the right to alter it if it's ever an issue before the court. A female is one that has a different chromosome mix than that of a male or, a female is one that has different plumbing as that of a male or, a female is one that can bear children. No one cares if she gets if exactly right.

The question regarding when life begins is interesting. It can be answered in several ways I'm sure but she could have just said something like "my layperson's response is if it consumes and processes nutrients it's alive and I reserve the right to alter .......or, life begins at conception but there is, or may be, a distinction between human life and personhood as understood in law. Again I don't care about her exact answer but I would like to know how she or any other SC nominee processes important questions.

What if she were asked "assume there is no governing law; what would you tell an 8 year old child that just got a bunny rabbit and wants to beat it to death with baseball bat."

But what other judges be it Supreme Court or Federal have been asked such asinine questions? Can you show me where Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett or Kavanaugh got asked the same question? The problem with the question is that they lack any substance and are simply meant to create a political soundbite.

And there’s a good reason not to answer a question that asks you to define x because as a judge you shouldn’t be bring your preconceived biases to any case. You make judgements based on facts, arguments, laws, precedent and the constitution. For example, before 2010, the money would not have been found anywhere in a definition of speech or free speech, but post citizens united, political donations are a first amendment right. Which I’m sure has the framers of the constitution turning over in their graves.

And this isn’t going to get into the obvious racist overtones of being up Critical Race Theory to a black nominee to the Supreme Court which I’m pretty sure all of us know the connection that they’re attempting to make there. It’s 100% fair to bring up judicial record, old cases, writings etc

If you want to see substantive questions from a Republican, look up the interactions with judge Brown Jackson and Ben Sasse. He’s not going to vote for her but his questions actually get to the process and how she makes decisions. He didn’t use his time acting like a jackass to get on Fox News.

[popper]

I was being serious I’m genuinely curious to see what perspective you want to share. I’m not even trying to be snarky. I believe I have a good perspective of the Conservative view point, but I’m always happy to be proven wrong.

I'm okay with not prolonging my interference in this thread but since you asked nicely I'll try to provide more context. The nominee will be confirmed no matter what so I understand her economy in just saying buzz off. The SC issue I raised was that I think it's silly to evade simple questions like "define the word women." The stupid senator's question should have been "define what a female is." Zonk is right I think that the definition of a women is in modern times a social construct. Had the question been posed correctly there's no reason to evade it. She could have simply said "senator if your asking me what a female is then I'll give you a laypersons response, reserving the right to alter it if it's ever an issue before the court. A female is one that has a different chromosome mix than that of a male or, a female is one that has different plumbing as that of a male or, a female is one that can bear children. No one cares if she gets if exactly right.

The question regarding when life begins is interesting. It can be answered in several ways I'm sure but she could have just said something like "my layperson's response is if it consumes and processes nutrients it's alive and I reserve the right to alter .......or, life begins at conception but there is, or may be, a distinction between human life and personhood as understood in law. Again I don't care about her exact answer but I would like to know how she or any other SC nominee processes important questions.

What if she were asked "assume there is no governing law; what would you tell an 8 year old child that just got a bunny rabbit and wants to beat it to death with baseball bat."

But what other judges be it Supreme Court or Federal have been asked such asinine questions? Can you show me where Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett or Kavanaugh got asked the same question? The problem with the question is that they lack any substance and are simply meant to create a political soundbite.

No they are not. I don't know if you are a parent but questions regarding right and wrong, and the reasoning behind the answers are supremely important for our progeny and the future of our country. I can't help it that our senate is populated by self serving idiots that don't ask relevant questions. I wish it weren't so but I represent a single vote among many. If you are, or may become a parent, teaching a child why it's wrong to beat a helpless bunny to death is supremely important. SC justices should have the intellectual heft to handle these questions. As I said, the current nominee will be confirmed and she may very well deserve to be. But that doesn't mean that her core beliefs and judicial temperament shouldn't be fully examined.

And there’s a good reason not to answer a question that asks you to define x because as a judge you shouldn’t be bring your preconceived biases to any case. You make judgements based on facts, arguments, laws, precedent and the constitution. For example, before 2010, the money would not have been found anywhere in a definition of speech or free speech, but post citizens united, political donations are a first amendment right. Which I’m sure has the framers of the constitution turning over in their graves.

And this isn’t going to get into the obvious racist overtones of being up Critical Race Theory to a black nominee to the Supreme Court which I’m pretty sure all of us know the connection that they’re attempting to make there. It’s 100% fair to bring up judicial record, old cases, writings etc

If you want to see substantive questions from a Republican, look up the interactions with judge Brown Jackson and Ben Sasse. He’s not going to vote for her but his questions actually get to the process and how she makes decisions. He didn’t use his time acting like a jackass to get on Fox News.

[popper]

KBJ is a nothing of a story. She should be confirmed with no more controversy than Gorsuch, and Gorsuch wrote that contraception destroys fertilized eggs (uh, it doesn't). stoking fears that KBJ is some sort of neo-black panther who's facilitating child trafficking is slander. the only reason she's in the news cycle is so that Fox doesn't have to continue to run stories on the Ukrainian war where their stars keep sticking their foot in their mouths re: Putin.

Nobody cared about SCOTUS nominations prior to Garland's failed nomination and now it's a circus. Kagan was confirmed 63-37. Sotomayor 68-31. Alito 58-42. Roberts 78-22. Breyer 87-9, and RBG 96-3. The last SCOTUS nominee that even came close to not being confirmed was Coke-Can Clarence at 52-48. This is because (a) Republicans love politicizing the Court; and (b) Republicans can't help but nominate nutjobs.

Prior to Garland, the last 3 failed nominations were all Republican nominations: Robert Bork, G. Harrold Carswell, and Clement Haynsworth.

Carswell and Haynsworth were both Nixon nominations, and both failed because they wrote opinions in support of segregation, like upholding the decision of an entire county to shut down their public schools rather than integrate. This led to Nixon nominating Harry Blackmun, who happened to be the author of the Roe decision.

Bork's nomination in 1987, 20 years after the civils rights act, failed on a double whammy because he was on the record as criticizing the civil rights act not only racist beliefs(segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.), but also sexist beliefs (equal pay, right to privacy, etc.)

Like, sorry, but these guys are freaks. There are 2 justices on this court that have credible accusations of sexual assault. ACB is in a cult that preaches religious obedience of the wife to the husband. Even Gorsuch, he actually believes that contraception destroys a fertilized egg, and that a fertilized egg means something, in a moral/soul context. The influences of Church in the State are undeniable. These are not the best and brightest, but they are the ones who have proven to be most doggedly dogmatic to the Republican (FedSoc) agenda of reversing Roe, protect corporate interests, and expand executive power.

It's not to say all republican judges are rapists, or religious wackjobs. But the names that keep cropping up on the FedSoc list of nominees certainly are. And this is all for a reason - the last thing that capital R republicans want is another Blackmun, who can't be controlled, and actually judges things based on the merits and a neutral, unbiased opinion on law.

I would be appalled if it came out that a Dem candidate had sexual assault allegations, and would absolutely demand that a different candidate be found. I am similarly appalled when a Republican candidate does. This turnabout simply doesn't exist for Republicans, and THAT to me is the frustrating thing. THAT is why I have to laugh when Nate or Popper or any number of other Republicans poke their heads in here and say "Oh it's never civil discourse with you people."

Ok, bro. How about you just take more than 2 seconds to evaluate the state of events before just digging your heels in along party lines out of default.

Ok bro. How about you take more than 2 seconds to evaluate where you and I may differ on important issues. I have 10+ years of history here so that shouldn't be difficult for you. List them and I'll address each according to my honest beliefs and positions. I think you will be quite surprised.

[popper]

the republican party, and really any conservative party is intrinsically one that is reactionary to new policies, which is fine. there should be a tempered check on "progress" because not all new things are also good. so i'm willing to concede that the republican party doesn't have "ideals" per se, other than to counter whatever the progressives want.

the problem is that instead of adopting the position that republicans are the restrained path forward, everything is binary and nothing new/liberal can ever be good. everything is rooted in tradition and originalism with no thought as to how to move forward as a nation. centrists are already incrementalists. the republican party has no role, except for the one they artificially crafted for themselves - complete nullifcation of dem platforms.

climate change is now climate denial. mask mandates and vaccines have to be theatrics, even though it's completely a nonpartisan issue.

not to mention that in order to control the narrative, big R republicans have shifted the goal posts so much, and done such a good job with their news compatriots, that the actual issues that all americans are facing - rising costs of living across the board - is being diluted by red herrings - CRT, transphobia, etc.

even the conversation about costs isn't related to housing costs, education costs, healthcare, childcare, etc. - ya know, what 75% of our budget actually goes to. it's about gas prices. it has to be gas prices. it can't be that rent is too damn high, or college tuition has 10x'ed n cost over the past 50 years. or that it's insane how we're the only industrialized nation that doesn't have universal healthcare. like, even totalitarian nations like Russia/China have universal healthcare.

so when you ask guys like popper and nate what they actually want to talk about, there's nothing for them to say. all of the information they have access to is how to tear down dem ideas. there is nothing to offer, other than platitudes like "secure the border" and "America first"

I can only speak for myself but that's total bullsh*t.

[JWizmentality]

So Ginni Thomas....miss me with the American Exceptionalism garbage.

[doclinkin]

Delve in to the chronology of events surrounding Hunter Biden's laptop from the point it was authenticated by the NY Post before the election to last weeks authentification by the NY Times (many months after the election). Why, without evidence did 50 ex-intelligence executives say that it had all the signs of Russian disinformation? At least one poll showed that the election may have turned out differently had voters known that Hunter was vacuuming up cash in Moscow, Ukraine and other foreign countries.

Do you really care about Russian money interfering with American politics? Or do you care about trying to discredit Biden.

Because here you cite a sketchy story reported in the Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post with sketchy sources VS acknowledged transactions between Jared Kushner and Trump companies exchanging large amounts of cash with Russian oligarchs via Deutsche Bank, and the Trump organization suing to prevent the bank from complying with a Federal subpoena.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html

Anti-money-laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank recommended in 2016 and 2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by Donald J. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a federal financial-crimes watchdog.

The transactions, some of which involved Mr. Trump’s now-defunct foundation, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity, according to five current and former bank employees. Compliance staff members who then reviewed the transactions prepared so-called suspicious activity reports that they believed should be sent to a unit of the Treasury Department that polices financial crimes.

The Trump foundation being the organization that was ordered to pay $2 million in damages for acting like a private slush fund for Trump instead of supporting the 8 charities that it was supposedly created to benefit.

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump-pays-court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation

On the one hand we have alleged activity with a questionable chain of evidence of stolen property. Vs actual transactions between Russian oligarchs who are friendly with Putin and Trump's illegal organization. Where multiple employees of the lending bank suggest money laundering is likely and ought to be investigated. But perfectly innocent Trump sued to prevent disclosure.

[Zonkerbl]

is it trolling to drop into a thread like this, throw out wild accusations about censorship and spread white wing conspiracy talking points, stir up a bunch of discussion and then not respond to any of it?

I'm trying to respond but every time I get in to the fourth or fifth paragraph an ad pops up and won't allow me to continue. So I'll respond in pieces.

Ah I feel ya.

Dems asked the Republican nominees if they intended to strike down Roe v Wade and they lied and/or evaded the question. So I don't know what you're expecting when the Republicans ask the same sort of questions from the Dem nominee. I mean, you can ask whatever question you want, so I don't agree these are inappropriate questions. But it would be stupid for KBJ to volunteer more than the Republican nominees did. I do object to the Republican senators who shouted over her and generally ignored the rules. That's childish. The least that can be expected from Senators is to have some dignity, or lacking that have some respect for the office.

You guys should give up on the Hunter Biden thing, it's shameful. You lost that argument when Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskiy over it. It doesn't matter what was on it now. For all we know the whole thing was manufactured by Russian spies anyway. They probably what, sent some honeypot Russian blondes to get him high, stole his laptop and planted all sorts of crazy stuff on it, so Trump could use it during his campaign. So what.

Popper you know you are welcome here. When I say nasty things know that I'm saying it about people who deserve it, like Trump, not about you. People like you and me, we should be on the same side. The true enemy is the billionaires like Trump who are trying to set us poors against each other, so we don't focus on the real source of the problem, which is corrupt bastards like him who twist the rules to get away with whatever they want and noname numbnuts like us get the short end of the stick. Trump hates you, you know that right? He's literally trying to kill you guys with covid. Guys like us, our only defense against power mad lunatics like Trump and Putin is to stick together and not let the right wing propaganda machine drive wedges between us.

[Pointgod]

What would she tell the child about the rabbit? I'd like to know.

Regarding my comments about soliciting political opinions that differ from the prevalent political orthodoxy on this thread my purpose is selfish. Although it's rare that I post anymore, I do read it often, and frankly the thread is boring without robust political opposition. Not sure how you solicit that but maybe go on the general thread or something.

There are a huge number of meaty issues that are not addressed here that are important for the country. I'd appreciate it if you would address them. Again, ten years is enough for me. For instance;

Delve in to the chronology of events surrounding Hunter Biden's laptop from the point it was authenticated by the NY Post before the election to last weeks authentification by the NY Times (many months after the election). Why, without evidence did 50 ex-intelligence executives say that it had all the signs of Russian disinformation? At least one poll showed that the election may have turned out differently had voters known that Hunter was vacuuming up cash in Moscow, Ukraine and other foreign countries.

Why did Facebook and Twitter censor any mention of the authenticated laptop until after the election?

I could go on and on but I'm tired. Best to you all.

So help me understand this correctly. Hunter Biden drops off his laptop at computer repair shop, the computer repair guy gives the laptop to Giuliani and it somehow ends up with the FBI. But of course all of this conveniently comes out weeks before the election and causes a right wing misinformation storm, despite the fact that no one has verified what was on the laptop at the time.

All the hallmarks of a Russian misinformation operation and the only news paper that reported on it was the NY Post, owned by Trump supporter Rupert Murdoch and who one of the writers didn’t want to put their name on the byline.

https://www.thewrap.com/ny-post-hunter-biden-ny-times/

Now to clarify, the New York Times didn’t validate the NY Post reporting or validity of the laptop story. All they did was verify some of the emails did belong to Hunter Biden.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-aide-hunter-biden-election-b2038984.html

But let’s take a look back into what happened when legitimate news organizations tried to report about the laptop and verify the information on it. You should really read the whole article below because it goes into a lot of detail regarding how Trump and Giuliani shopped the story to different newspapers, didn’t cooperate when asked about questions, Fox News also saw the laptop contents and decided against publishing the information and the computer repair guy’s story was all over the place.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/here-s-what-happened-when-nbc-news-tried-report-alleged-n1245533

But the Wall Street Journal and Fox News — among the only news organizations that have been given access to key documents — found that the emails and other records don’t make that case. Leaving aside the many questions about their provenance, the materials offered no evidence that Joe Biden played any role in his son’s dealings in China, let alone profited from them, both news organizations concluded.

As to Ukraine, a single email published by the New York Post suggests Joe Biden may have had a meeting with a representative of a Ukrainian company that employed his son. Trump and his allies alleged that means Joe Biden has lied when he said he never discussed his son’s business roles. The Biden campaign denies the meeting happened.

The lack of major new revelations is perhaps the biggest reason the story has not gotten traction, but not the only one. Among others: Most mainstream news organizations, including NBC News, have not been granted access to the documents. NBC News asked by email, text, phone call and certified mail, and was ultimately denied.

I guess you believe that we should be open to the Conservative viewpoint that Twitter and Facebook killed the story to protect Biden and keep Trump from getting re-elected, but nothing happens in a bubble. Russia used social media to purposely spread misinformation to influence the 2016 election, of course any responsible company would not let that happen again, no matter who it was against or in favour of. Remember Fox News and the Wall Street Journal didn't run with the story after getting access to the laptop and contents. I don’t think you’re coming at this from the perspective of an honest broker who should be skeptical of anything that associated with Rudy Giuliani.

[Zonkerbl]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/24/cory-booker-doesnt-let-gop-ugliness-tar-ketanji-brown-jacksons-historic-moment/