Raider5678

Looks like it's pretty much all cleared up now. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/north-korea-reportedly-readies-nuclear-missile-sites-for-inspectors.html

There is a difference between reporting a story in a negative light and casting a story in a negative light, that'd be a false equivalence. Let's look at the CNN report that J.C. MacSwell specifically mentioned. https://www.air.tv/watch?v=vBVwLfi6SE6Uo788eDZxnQ Watch it and tell me what you think of it. Within 30 seconds he's mad at the media reporting on this so much, "Why fan the flames of the foolish?" as he says. I guess by foolish he could be meaning anything because he doesn't clarify, however it appears to me he's talking about Republicans who are watching it. Correct me if you see it a different way. Within 90 seconds he's attacking Kanye's mental health because Kanye has admitted to suspecting he has mental health conditions. And he then follows that up by saying that Trump clearly doesn't care about mental health because he's still meeting win Kanye and instead suggests that Trump is only thinking about getting headlines about "Blacks love Trump!" Within 120 seconds he's saying he doesn't care about what comes out of Kanye's mouth because of his mental health conditions. Within 150 seconds he says the true story is what Trump is thinking when he's smiling and suggests headlines like "He's blacker than Obama!" is going through his head. After 180 seconds he's saying Trumps thinking "Yeah. I'm Superman. I can do anything." And towards the end, he's mocking the media "Click click click click click" for taking pictures of Kanye West hugging Donald Trump which is something that Donald Trump doesn't deserve because of reasons? It seemed extremely biased to me, and not just reporting on a story in a negative light. He took Trump meeting with Kanye West and turned it into an attack on Trump, Kanye's mental health condition, Trump being extremely racist, and more. Sounds exactly like something Fox news would do.

Democrats won 4 times when voter turnout is lower than 57.8%(the average of the last 19 elections). Republicans won 5 times when the voter turnout is lower than 57.8%(the average of the last 19 elections). Hardly a conclusive statistic IMO. Just an opinion though.... I suspect this is exactly what will happen. Good or not. The economy isn't in turmoil, we're not in any major wars, there's no crisis massively affecting Americans(despite both parties attempt at making it seem so, especially Trump), there was no decisive supreme court case, there was no giant terrorist attack 9/11 sized, and there isn't massive public unrest. Unemployment is at an all-time low, China is losing the trade war before many tariffs have even begun (due to investors pulling out of China and turning to the U.S.), North Korea has backed down on the whole nuclear situation, the Syrian Conflict is coming to an end, ISIS was completely obliterated within months of Trumps inauguration, gotten NATO allies to significantly take up a bigger share of funding costs and literally an entire list of things that have happened under Trump that voters overwhelming support. In regards to things that he's done Americans don't like, you've got the Paris Climate Change agreement, Kavanaugh, the affordable care act changes, and his overall demeanor(Defending bad people and refusing to denounce bad organizations), I don't suspect it will hurt him enough(or specifically the Republican party) for the Republican party to suffer the supposedly "blue wave" that is predicted. What it would mean would basically be a lot more of what we're currently seeing. Really controversial things about stuff like Supreme court nominations and immigrants.

Welcome to the forum.

Net gain. If his ads lose Hispanic votes, but gain even more votes from other races then lost, it's a gain. Additionally, I sent the ad to two Hispanic friends of mine and neither thought it was racist. One is an immigrant too if that plays into it. That being said, one of them supported the overall message(immigrant) the other thought differently(birthright).

There is a difference between making stuff up and answering a question wrong, which is what I was implying previously. I.E. teacher asks them a question and they answer it the wrong way.

Honestly, this is probably one of the hardest parts about political discussions. It's hard to judge just how much farther along the political spectrum someone is. This is a prime example of such, Ranger. J.C. Macswell is farther right then you are on CNN, however you've assumed that he's so far to the right that Fox news is his house and that he's demanding squeaky clean from CNN while ignoring Fox. From what I've read in his post, that is not at all his position. It's something that can lead to misunderstandings and make it difficult to hold a discussion, and is something that I can ensure you I've done before as well.

Independents for the win!

Have you ever been wrong about something before? If someone called you a liar for being wrong, would you be upset at me if I pointed out that everyone is wrong sometimes? Regardless of the situation that got the person there mentally, if they say something they think is the truth I don't think it makes them a liar. It makes them wrong. And with that, you're taking what I said the wrong way. I'm not saying "I would defend the liars." I am saying "I don't think being wrong makes them a liar." And as such, I'd defend them from being accused of lying if I knew they were simply wrong and didn't know they were wrong.

Apologizing, no. But if someone accused them of lying I'd probably defend him.

I kind of think of him like the football jocks in my class who don't pay attention because they're too busy trying to disturb class and then say stupid stuff about the subject later. I don't blame them for lying, even though what they said was willfully and ignorantly derived. I say they're wrong.

You know I really should look at more politicians like this. Sometimes they're lying: soetimes they're just wrong.

I watched an artillery bombardment once. That was pretty loud. (The Indian Town Gap held a drill. Wasn't on a city or something.)

Got it. Thank you.

Correct. Sorry, I was flying to Texas on the day you put this out, and I'm currently stranded in the airport and checked this thread again. Hence why I'm replying now. In regards to the political baggage of Hillary Clinton. Due to a series of propoganda campaigns from the Republican campaign against Hillary they've given her baggage from when she deleted the emails. We don't know what was in the emails, granted, and she hasn't been convicted, however the Republicans have driven the point home that her deleting them is a sign of guilt. Completely ignoring innocent until proven guilty, which should be a crime IIMO but whatever. Anyways, her baggage is directly linked with politics and corruption. It casts an extremely negative light, especially with all the other potential candidates with less baggage. Trump I suspect will face a similar problem if he chooses to run for election, however I doubt it will affect him because the fake news campaigns held by Republicans have done a sufficiently good job at making sure the voters don't believe it. To quote Trump: "sad Sad SAD." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Hillary emails and the emails hacked from the DNC by Mr. Putin are two different incidents?

I mean it's true in any context, however this one in particular. Because bombs. I would like to see something done about it, however I'm not sure how it could be done. The U.S. government doesn't control the internet. It could, but only for the U.S. And it'd require a lot of work and ultimate end in the U.S. government being able to control the flow of information. And especially with the current administration, I don't want them to have that kind of power, regardless of who wields it.

Knowledge is power is true in this context. *Added the stuff in the square brackets

Wish I'd been able to talk at that time....

Believe it or not, several of these bombs that go "pop" could be life threatening. A sparkler bomb properly hooked up could have killed someone just as effectively as the pipe bombs sent, if not better.

Short of completely transferring funds from the ACA to Medicare and expanding coverage to everyone(which wouldn't be enough to fund it), how would you chance the ACA?

I say that to ensure that's what he is saying. He didn't specifically say he wanted to undercut private health insurance and I figured I'd confirm that's what he said. Either way a discussion into that will go off topic of the ACA.

So completely undercut the private health insurance system?

Would you rather see the ratings adjusted or the three of them(or combination/one of them) simply repealed in the meantime? Which would benefit people the most? Having them repealed as soon as possible or adjusting the ratings system(I'm not sure how long that would take. Anyone have an idea?) Person** not hospital. My apologies. You mentioned being wary of people referring to patients as customers. How could we apply that to healthcare today?

Wary? What would you do if you were wary of a particular hospital? I.E. cut funding, change administrators, etc.

@John CuthberWhat behaviors would you look for?