Ten oz

Here the equivalency you are making seems clear. FoxNews is in the bag for Republican and CNN is in the bag for Democrats. Due to the previous statement I assume the "bias" you are referencing is Republican/Democrat? The link is Negative Trump coverage but there is nothing pro-Democrat. Are you saying all negative Trump sentiment is pro-Democratic? If so than Nicki Haley, Colin Powell, John McCain, John Kasich, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and many other Republicans who have publicly ridiculed Trump are are actually pro-Democrat. Separately Republicans follow FoxNews to a significantly greater degree than Democrats follow CNN.

Here is a list of Foxnews employees and contributors literally hired by Trump: John Bolton, Mercedes Schlapp, Scott Brown, Richard Grenell, John D. McEntee, Tony Sayegh, K.T. McFarland, Georgette Mosbacher, and Anthony Scaramucci, Here. Former FoxNews Chairman Roger Ailes helped Trump prep for debtaes, Here. Trump Jr is dating former FoxNews commutator Kimberly Guilifoyle, Here Trump has done more interviews with FoxNews than all other media outlets combined a few times over, Here ....and then there is stuff like Trump live tweeting FoxNews shows, directing people via twitter to watch various FoxNews Programs, complementing FoxNews at rallies, and etc. There is nothing equivalent happening on CNN that I am aware off. I don't have cable and don't watch either CNN or FoxNews but am aware of the manner in which Foxnews has literally been integrated into Trump's White News. Nothing like it exists over at CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN, or etc. Can you provide examples of Clinton, Holder, Obama, or whomever on the left tweeting gifs of them punching or body slamming FoxNews, live tweeting CNN shows, citing CNN at campaign rallies, and etc, etc, etc??? If it is truly equivalent you'll be able to provide examples.

FoxNews is the tip of the spear for Republican messaging. There is no Democratic equivalent. Barrack Obama never had regular evening phone chats with Rachael Maddow as Trump does with Sean Hannity.

Ironically MigL was worried about character assassination just a couple of weeks ago for a conservative up for a lifetime appointment yet is now engaging in it against Khashoggi.

Yep, those poor Republicans. Nevermind they control every branch of the govt.

Can you cite some of Khashoggi's work? It is you who started a thread in here about Khashoggi and not Faisal Devji. You called Khashoggi a hack. It would be great if you could actively participate in the discussion you started rather than telling people to use Google and copying and pasting whole op-eds written by others.

I think this happens but is more of a permanent tipping point than an election cycle to cycle occurrence. One may grow to become more conservative as they age or vice versa. It is possible Trump has cause some moderate women to reach that point. However I suspect Trump has also cause many alt right men who were voting weren't voting at all to do the same. Bill Clinton had 8yrs and those years are broadly viewed as among the best in the last century. Obama had 8yrs and both here at home and abroad he is noted as supremely competent. Yet both Clinton and Obama (despite good approval #'s) were followed by idiots. It is nonsensical. I understand you hope about values mattering more than party but I am struggling to identify which values those might. Regardless of what happens on election the day after Trump will claim victory and the media narratives will dare us to consider whether or not Trump is right.

I may a lot of pointed statements based on my opinions but believe I do decent job at attempting to explain my thoughts without a lot of fluff or gamesmanship. I try to be straight forward. Whether it is false equivalency or any other logical fallacies I think the problem is that some posters are actively trying to obfuscate matters. In some cases it is a defense strategy to avoid criticism while other times it is just an unwillingness to consider an issue at anymore length. Provided a person understands why they feel the way they do about an issue no logical fallacies should be necessary. Why is it allowed, I assume, is because we are emotional creatures and everyone processes information differently. Some people are naturally defensive or self pitying. Communication isn't purely about expressing ones honest thoughts. It can also be used to influence the manner in which ones thoughts are understood and some posters by habit are simply more focus on the later.

How many legitimate recounts did we get in 2016..........

In the U.S. political blowouts are impossible. Despite the worst economic collapse of our lifetime and Bush's approval rating being in the 20's The Republican ticket still got 45.7% of the popular vote in 2008. That is amazing when you consider Trump won in 2016 with 46.1%. Less than half percentage point of the vote difference. People vote party and nothing that is actually happening changes how they vote. I am sick and tired of reading about the all important independents and how they decide elections. I think it is total bullsh!t. Turnout decides elections. If turnout is up Democrats win and if turnout is down Republicans win. That is it. If I was running a campaign turnout would be my only focus. When asked about taxes, immigration, climate, or etc I would simply respond with a rant about the importance of turnout. It is no secret which is why throughout red states they push voter ID laws, limit early voting, and work to reduce polling location. So it trying to predict who comes out ahead in this election we must also try to predict what impact various laws will have on turnout county by county and that isn't an assessment I am able to make. “The African-American community was great to us. They came through, big league. Big league. And frankly if they had any doubt, they didn’t vote, and that was almost as good because a lot of people didn’t show up, because they felt good about me.” - Trump

I don't like the set up for this discussion. The OP calls Khashoggi a hack Journalist and then as support merely tosses out the Muslim Brotherhood as if we all should accept and understand anyone who gets associated with the Muslim Brotherhood is obviously bad. When asked to elaborate MigL responded "google search of J Khashoggi and the Muslim Brotherhood". We can have a better discussion than this. @MigL , Khashoggi was a journalist in Saudi Arabia until 2017. From within Saudi Arabia he spent his career advocating that women should have equal rights as men, public should have free expression, and that secularism should be tolerated. Relative to the the Country he lived and worked in Khaskoggi's views aligned with Western views fairly well which is why when he fled Saudi Arabia he came to the West. Khashoggi's final column was titled " What the Arab world needs most is free expression" and centered around the need for free expression in the Arab world which is a position all Western Democracies support, Canada included. As the Saudi govt searches for excuses and the U.S. govt searches for reasons to accept those excuses a propaganda campaign has been launched to besmirch Khashoggi. Considering Khashoggi was a published Journalist it shouldn't be difficult for you to link articles written by him outlining his positions you find objectionable or to be examples of "hack" journalism. I posted his final article and recommend you read it. It isn't very long.

What most people expect to happen is for Democrats to win the House and Republicans to keep the Senate. For me though anything seems possible. Reading about what's happening in places like GA makes me think this could be 2016 all over and despite polling Republicans eek out improvable wins with anomalously low margins for victory. A landslide for Democrats seems like the longest shot as too much is stacked against them. They have far more Senate races they need to win just to stay even and simply winning more votes hasn't seemed to be enough in the past. I think for sure Democratic candidates will get more votes but that is all I know. It is anyone's guess how those votes translate into seats.

My mistake. I meant "are not".

Sessions and Rosenstein are toast after the mid-terms. There is a good change "sort of a Democrat" Mattis, Kelly, Sanders, and mnuchin are all gone as well.

For the same reason a Road isn't called Earth.

1 - This has been an issue since before 2016 and the Russian propaganda attacks. In 2000 Republicans successfully stole an elections and then introduced partisan money masquerading as unaffiliated grass roots to swift boat Kerry in 04'. The system has been compromised for decades. I think 2016 just shed light on how compromised it is. 2 - It seems a substantial portion of the U.S. legitimately hates other portions of the U.S.. From stand your ground laws, the death penalty, "let them die" stance on healthcare, and so on it seems clear to me many within the U.S. would straight up like to see many of their fellow citizens F#&% off and die. That might read like hyperbole but in a political environment where actual Nazis literally hold rallies and aren't condemned universally by all the threshold for what's hyperbole has been significantly raised. I don't think it is about distrust. The new definition being floated for gender isn't about distrust. The issues are about hate not distrust. People simple do not like transgender individuals, immigrants, Muslims, Jewish people, uppity black athletes who do anything more than be entertainment, and uppity women who can't handle an old fashion smack on the butt. The Fourth Reich isn't stoking fear but rather it is seizing upon hatred. No one legitimately fears the the poor migrants in the caravan rather people just hate the idea of more immigrants. I think too many moderates and Democrats waste their time attempting to engaged in thoughtful debate with those who are plainly trolling them. Some relationships can't be save. Sometimes a break up is in order. The GOP has already done their part. The GOP has already walked away from centrist positions and made it clear minority and women aren't welcome. Everyone else (Democrats, independents, moderates) need to stop thinking there is something we can change about ourselves to make the GOP comeback. We can't. They left us. They are with someone else now (Putin).

I'd prefer to be 100% wrong. Delusion my part would be a much better alternative. Hey, no one ever lived during a perfect time period. At least I have a smart phone and Netflix.

The system isn't fair. It is common for Democrats to win more votes and still lose. Democrats already have the more popular candidates, evidence being they get more votes, and it isn't enough. It is easy to toss around equivalencies and what not but all that does is diminish what is a real problem. Can you provide an example on democrat based voter suppression or Republicans losing despite winning more votes? Below are examples of it for Republicans. II don't see how it is "way too much" complaining if it's true.

Voter suppression is real. In GA we had a bus full of African American Senior Citizens who were in route to vote stopped by the police. In the GA's Gov's race the Republican candidate in the current Sec. of State in GA and isn't recusing himself from issues surround voter registration. If the Democrat in GA loses by a slim margin we'll never know if that was a fair race. These issues repeat themselves through various parts of the country. Rather than addressing them the majority of people appear to settle for narratives surround the way campaign money was spent, which issues candidates chose to highlight, and etc. I personally don't believe campaign management is the key factor. We have a system here in the U.S. where state by state and county by county local govts all have different processes to vote.Those processes are often intentionally manipulated to give one candidate an advantage over another. The system simply isn't fair and I personally do not trust the out come any close election whether a Democrat or Republican wins. The system needs fixing. *I didn't link the Seniors on the bus or the voter reintegration issue because I assume we are all aware of them.

When you get time and/or are interested go to google and type in The New Jim Crow and you will see there is a lot of literature on this issue. Jim Crow was a systematic process of exploiting the law to disenfranchise a specific group of people. It still goes on today. Prosecutors being more or less inclined means they still have discretion. Two people arrested for the exact same thing do not have to receive the same charges and that is just a fact. Between a person with no resources to fight prosecution and a person with resources to fight prosecution whom do you think a Prosecutor is more likely to cut a deal or option against prosecuting at all? Mandatory sentencing gives Prosecutor more leverage to force plea bargains out of some people but ultimately they still have discretion. I don't think mandatory sentencing does anything to ensure equal treatment under the law. To the point about Jim Crow above Prosecutors (the people who decide who gets charged with what) work for District Attorney in many localities elected position and in the other it is a politically appointed position. District Attorney's are Politicians. Who they decide to prosecute and for which charges are often decided on Politics. That is built into the system. It is why politicians campaign on the various types of people they plan to put behind bars if elected.

I recommend keeping a log so you can track the amount of sodium and sugar you eat everyday. How much Sodium one needs everyday varies by activity level. Normally 1500-2300 miligrams a day is considered standard. Different brands of food can have different amounts of sodium even for similar products so make sure you read the labels. Same is true for sugar it will vary by brand. 80 grams of day is typical but activity levels matter. Since you were told to watch sodium you should also pay attention to your potassium intake too as a proper balance between the is important.

Peanut allergy isn't an issue associated with obesity while high blood is. Asking for directions isn't associated with murder while obesity is associated with cardiovascular disease. At 5'7 a normal healthy weight is generally around 150-160 pounds, Here. At 300 pounds Bucky is double the standard weight generally considered healthy for his size. There are serious health issues which can be associated with that. I think seeing a doctor enaure they are healthy enough to train, diet, and etc is good advice. One doesn't get to double a healthy BMI overnight without a prolonged period of unhealthy habits.

My point was that there is a long history of voter disenfranchisement in the U.S.. As a result extra consideration needs to be considered when laws which impact ones ability to vote. Such a history doesn't exist with regards to drive licenses. Political organizations are actively working on way to exploit the law to disenfranchise drivers.

In the OP Bucky states that they are 300lbs and would like to lose 80lbs. No height was provided so it is unclear how far above their recommended body mass index they are. Additionally no age was given or for how long they have been at 300lbs. They refer to themselves as obese and could have any number of health issues associated with being obese like diabetes, high blood pressure, or a thyroid issue. I don't think any of us know if Bucky is healthy enough for specific exercises or diets.