Ten oz

You still don't get it. In 2008 Democratic Congressional candidates won 13 million more votes than Republicans. 65 million votes for Democrats to just 52 million for Republicans yet Republicans only lost 21 seats. Here Two years later in 2010 Republicans got 6 million more votes (45 million to 39 million) and Democrats lost 63 seats. Here Think about that. It took a 13 million vote advantage to earn Dems just 21 seats but then only 6 million for Republicans to earn 63. For every million more votes Dems earned they picked up less than half a seat while Republicans earned over 10 seats. It isn't merely about who is in control of the Congress it is about peoples votes mattering and people believing they are fairly represented. If Republicans are getting more representation per vote the system is broken. Even when Democrats win by huge margins they don't receive the representation they deserve. That is the current state of Gerrymandering. Democrats must win by tens of millions just to earn meager increases in representation.

There you have it. FoxNews on stage rallying Republicans the day before an election. No one at CNN was brought on stage by any Democrats. There is simply no equivalent. CNN is not in the tank for Democrats the way FoxNews is for Republicans. There is a demonstrable difference.

Broad public support is definitely important. If a govt is fairly elected than it will have public support otherwise how would it win election in the first place? People in North Korea are not free to have an opinion one way or another. You misunderstand. I am saying redistricting led to individuals who are not broadly supported winning elections. I am not saying people understand why it's happening. Obama left office with a 60% approval rating. Bush left with a 30% approval rating. Trump currently sits at 42%. There is a difference between the approval of Democrats and Republicans. Say both are believe to be "full or crap" ignores that difference. Obama won the popular vote and had the support of the majority of the country. Also despite being in the minority currently Democrats represent 40 million more people: "the 51 Republican senators now represent about 143 million people, according to the latest Census Bureau state population estimates. The 49 Democratic senators represent about 182 million people, nearly 40 million more. That's about 2.8 million people per Republican senator and 3.7 million people per Democratic senator." Here Honestly I think your opinion lacks perspective. You are not old enough to remember a time when the Govt was broadly supported. Congress has had over whelming disapproval your whole life. You have not witness the shift in respect and trust which has accorded.

Support of the British Parliament sits between the upper 30's and low 40's, Here. Those numbers are unheard of for the U.S. Congress which has an approval rating in the teens for the last decade. While the Prime Minister has a low approval in the 30's their disapproval is only in the low 40's with over 20% undecided, Here. Trump's disapproval is in the mid 50's. So it appears that people in the UK are less disapproving and more satisfied with their govt than we are here in the U.S.. In a Democracy broad public support should matter and here in the U.S. it really hasn't seemed to over the last couple decades. It hasn't always been this way. Congressional approval use to be significantly higher. Congressional redistricting occurs every 10yrs and the last 2 rounds (2000 and 2010) were lead by a Republican controlled Congress and state legislatures. The first election after Republican controlled Redistricting was in 2002. Support for Congress has declined every since. The Gerrymandering was put on Steroids in 2010 with a Republican program REDMAP . I understand that within our (USA) 2 party system it seems bias to blame one side rather than both sides but truly I don't see how this in a both sides situation. The last 2 Democratic Presidents had high public approval numbers while the last 2 Republicans had/have low approval numbers. Congress has had an embarrassingly low approval rating since Republican redistricting. Gaining and maintaining power without seeking or earning broad public support isn't something both parties do. It is Republicans doing it and it is eroding faith in our democratic institutions.

Ironically the Constitution was wildly progressive for it's time. It only seems conservatives when removed from the context of it's era. Russia achieved their objective when Trump was sworn in. I still voted.

I hope turnout is good. I am honestly nervous about the integrity of the whole system though. It wasn't for several months after the 2016 election we learned of various cyber breaches to state voting machines and the Mueller investigation is still shedding like things. Nothing has been done to shore things up. What is happening in GA is worrisome but is at least getting national attention. Imagine what could be doing in small races with less attention. It pains me to say it and I am a little embarrassed to admit it but I do not believe we (USA) have fair elections. My trust in the system has be lost. Not because of Trump alone but because of the nurmous elections across the country which have involved questionable practices over the last decade. Some of the practices are outright criminal and courts have had to step in, some are supressive by design but technically legal, and other haven't been discovered yet. Just as drugs in sports are always one step ahead of testing so too does election rigging seem to be ahead of enforcement.

In fairness 2014 wasn't a good year to compare 2018 to. It is usual for turnout to increase during the first mid-term under a new President. The better comparison would be 2010. Also early voting laws change so it is difficult to use early voting as a gauge for what total turn out will be. Turnout was 41% in 2010 and just 36% in 2014. Hopefully turnout will be greater than 2010's. We want know the exact numbers for at least a couple weeks.

Face to face conversations is a totally different ball game. Many people have specific images they seek to project. It impacts they way people dress, the car they drive, diet, speech, and etc. In many cases a person's persona can be totally factious or contrary to who they really are. Making friends, finding a mate, having healthy relationships, a good professional reputation, and etc are things different people either excel at or struggle with. As a result face to face conversations can be just as complicated as more so than online ones. Politically speaking I seriously doubt most people who have ever spent time alone with Barrack Obama didn't find themselves agreeing with him. He is smart, handsome, thoughtful, and projects a sense of respect for whatever topic he is discussing. Meanwhile Al Gore almost tempts debate because he is often difficult to follow, comes across as pretentious, and his words are forgettable. Yet Obama and Gore probably say 99% of the same things on political issues. However Gore is a much better writer than Obama in my opinion. Al Gore's 2007 book "Assault on Reason" was the single best breakdown of today's political environment I have read. We all are already aware of the the work Gore did with his 2006's book "An inconvenient Truth". Gore is every bit smart as Obama but Gore lacks charisma. A bit more on topic I think it would be a false equivalency to compare the charisma between those on the left and those on the right. On the right strength appears to be the personality trait most often projected. Where Democrats attempt project thoughtfulness Republicans seek to project confidence, where Democrats are compassionate Republicans are tough, and so on. Obama might be the person most people would prefer to be friends with but Trump is the one many egocentric types wish they could be (rich, macho, demanding, etc). *I strongly recommend Al Gore's "Assault on Reason". Every bit as informative as "An Inconvenient Truth" but it is about News Media and political organizations.

None, you are making a subjective argument. It can't be proved. Oneself is not the most objective source for confirming such. I wouldn't say a willingness to treat Martin Luther King's and the Klu Klux Klan's evenly makes one objective. Both sides don't always have a fair point. Anti-climate science doesn't deserve equal attention or consideration as Climate Science. Both sides should be considered for what they are worth and both sides aren't always, seldom ever in my opinion, worth the same. Over consideration for something undeserving is bad a thing as no consideration at all in my opinion.

Less of a difference in opinion and more of a difference in perspective though. You insist on a purely subjective view referencing things Lemon and Coumo said that you don't like. Surely you understand that your feelings about what CNN pundits say is subjective and not tangible. Meanwhile others in this thread have posted facts regarding ratings, political affiliations, partnership, and etc which exist regardless of ones subjective interpretation of them. At no point have I singled out a Cable News pundit and criticized their individual comments as you have been doing with CNN. I have focused on provable facts about the organizations and not on my own subjective media tastes.

This sums it up well. I have no issue with CNN criticism. I have an issue to drawing equivalencies between them and FoxNews.

Given your mis-characterizations of things said by others like Holder and Booker I don't feel I can take your word for it Lemon stated a racist position as you are claiming. That said I have never seen a Lemon telecast so I guess anything is possible. As I have already cited CNN's ratings are low. The majority of cable news viewers are watching something else. CNN gets the lowest ratings among cable news and Lemon is not their most watched. In other words Don Lemon is one of lowest rated cable news pundits on TV. Don Lemon is no equivalent to FoxNews pundits who quadruple his ratings and have direct access to the President for private conversations about message strategizing and policy. Don Lemon is just some guy on TV that says things you don't like. Don Lemon's sphere of influence is marginal. Call Don Lemon stupid, uniformed, or whatever. Say his show is terrible and no one should ever watch it. I doubt anyone here will argue with you. The problem is you are in a thread about false equivalencies mentioning Don Lemon as alongside with what's doing over at FoxNews. The situations are very different. Considering how many people at FoxNews have been hired on by Republicans, have helped manage national campaign, personally advise the GOP officials, and are referenced as a trusted source by Republicans for their supporters to use I'd say your use of the word "seen" is overly polite. FoxNews is the propaganda arm of the GOP. I feel the evidence supports that. Obama never live tweeted CNN shows or took lat night calls from Rachel Maddow to get advice on how to sell the ACA.

"Rooting for" is inaccurate. Working for or working with is more accurate. That is the part you are missing. You keep trying to equate would is said and ignore the rest. Don Lemon will never work for White House admin, run a national political campaign, advise a POTUS on policy in private late night phone calls, or etc. His counter parts at FoxNews do.

In addition to all the FoxNews employees who work for Republicans FoxNews also gets superior Ratings to CNN and has more partisan viewers. The President literally live tweets FoxNews shows and tells his supporters they are the best. Sean Hannity was working with Trump's private lawyer Micheal Cohen. There is simply no equivalent to FoxNews for Democrats. Not CNN or MSNBC. The argument seems to be that because superficially CNN or MSNBC cover things which in a manner that better aligns with Democrats they are the similar to FoxNews which is doing the same for Republicans. This attitude fails to appreciate that the scale of what FoxNews is and what it does.

This is another false equivalency. Your impact on their ratings is not equivalent to the impact you are implying they have on elections. What ever impact you believe they might have it is an indirect one at best. Your impact on their ratings is direct, no middle man. Not allowing people to vote or hacking voting machines in direct. What direct influence are you claiming CNN has?

I don't believe CNN has any impact. The .02% made was the low bar for what it would have taken for voter supression and Russia influence. You are the one push the CNN stuff. You need your on means of outlining the influence they have.

CNN's average audience is less than a million people nationally. In Florida alone 1.5 million people were barred from voting for past legal charges alone. Never mind other forms of voter suppression like manipulation of the location & hours of voter sites, state prescribed voter ID laws, and etc. Trump won Florida by 100k votes. I absolutely think voter suppression efforts matter more than CNN. If we are only talking felons who can't vote just that number is 6 million people and far greater than CNN's dismissal audience.

Numerous FoxNews employees work in the current administration. Comparing FoxNews directly to CNN is a falls equivalency. When Democrats are in power they don't hire CNN staff members to come work for them as Republicans do with FoxNews. Plus FoxNews gets double CNN's ratings and has a more partisan audience. All things I have already provided you citiations for. CNN may very well be garbage news but it is not the media arm of the Democratic Party as FoxNews is the Republican Party. If you called CNN garbage and left it at that I don't think anyone would bother to respond. It is the equivalency between CNN and FoxNews which is being debated. Actually it would. CNN is a TV Channel and like all channels it needs ratings. If people stopped tuning in they would have no choice but to change or go out of business. You watching CNN helps CNN's ratings. You are literally reinforcing via viewership support (the only support they care about) the very thing you are against. I personally don't evaluate political issues that way. I don't care what anyone on television (NRA TV, CNN, HBO, etc) says about Gun Control. Everyone who hosts a show on TV is performer first and foremost. I don't care about their performances. I care about actual laws on the books, what additions or changes are being proposed, the legal challenges, and so on. I think you underestimate the impact of voter suppression and Russia's involvement in the election. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million. Only Tens of thousands of votes secured Trump's electoral win in an election where over 130 million people voted. If you accept that voter suppression and Russia impacted even just .02% of the vote than you should understand that is what put Trump in the White House and not CNN.

I agree with the caveat that a religion can e built around a real person; Joseph Smith for example. It could go either way so the existence of Christianity alone is not proof of anything far as Jesus's historicity is concerned.

Half a century matches the freeze in wage growth adjusted for inflation.

North Korea has been providing Syria with weapons and chemical materials. The distinction between the two doesn't hold. North Korea is also currently violating U.S. sanctions with the help of Russia.

You aren't criticizing the press as a whole. Lots of jouranlism out there which hasn't come up in this conversation. You are specifically criticizing CNN. It is Trump who is making lifetime appointments, Trump who is changing trade deals, Trump who is ordering troops to the border for asylum seekers, and etc. Bringing up things you heard some lowly rated pundit say on CNN is not an equivalent counter balancing point to thing done by the U.S. govt. You keep attempting to draw these equivalencies between groups with disproportionate levels of audience and power. Just stop watching CNN. Problem solved. We are all adults here. No one is forcing you to watch anything you don't like. Lots of stuff on TV I am sure I would hate. The NRA has its own TV channel and neither watch it or complain about it. Seems straight forward me. No reason to reward cable shows you don't like with viewership. I am not even attempting to recommend a specific alternative which matches my world view. Just find something you feel reasonably comfortable with. Debating difficult problems through the lense of which 15 minute cable news segment we watched is stupid. I think a lot of people, not you or J.C. nessecarily, have become so accustom to hearing about how both sides feel that they don't trust themselves to form opinions without knowing what others are saying. I don't need to check with FoxNews before committing to a point of view as if to ensure I am not accidentally siding with Republicans or whatever. If I look into an issue and come to a conclusion which mirrors that of Paul Ryan than oh well I guess on that issue I am a bit more conservative. One shouldn't lean on cable news for perspective. News provides information but we all should be attempting to disgust that information for ourselves.

You have targeted Cuomo in several of your posts referencing CNN. Coumo is the 26th most watched cable news media personality here in the U.S.. CNN doesn't have a single top 25 rated news program. I don't think that warrants the suggestion that they have influence and power equivalent to elected officials. Not in any respects.

Just stop watching CNN if you don't like it. The situation is that simple. CNN has no legitimate influence or power over your life. You can just ignore it. Govt officials on the other hand have power and influence. Seems like myopic vision to me that you are constantly complaining about CNN. To my knowledge no one participating in these political discussion watches CNN. They are irrelevant.

This reads more like a justification of your position than a legitimate reason for claiming not to understand something. Obviously you are familiar with politicians hurling insults. Considering we both understanding that insults and low blows are common place in today's political environment your disparaging clothing remark analogy makes no sense. It absolutely happens.