Political forum is

[rapmarks Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close rapmarks]

Florida voters decided to allow felons to vote, over sixty percent voted yes

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

Florida voters decided to allow felons to vote, over sixty percent voted yes

But they were not allowed to vote at the time Snipes allowed them to do so, and she knew what the law was.

I see where the federal judge handling the lawsuits over this election has refused to extend the counting deadlines and called Florida "the laughingstock of the world" over its bungled elections.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ngstock-world/

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

Florida voters decided to allow felons to vote, over sixty percent voted yes

But they were not allowed to vote at the time Snipes allowed them to do so, and she knew what the law was.

I see where the federal judge handling the lawsuits over this election has refused to extend the counting deadlines and called Florida "the laughingstock of the world" over its bungled elections.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ngstock-world/

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

Looking ahead to presidential debates in 2020, with the more and more pronounced partisanship and bias of the major media, one wonders what those debates will look like. One of the latest polls, from Zogby for example shows that 72% of Americans blame the media for spreading hate and dividing America.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...spreading-hate

It would be political malpractice for a Republican to let the media have control of a political debate given their history.

IMHO, the best option would be Lincoln-Douglas style debates with no moderator and with each candidate coming up with half the questions to ask. If moderators are needed, each candidate should choose the moderator for half of the debates, or have co-moderators, one from each side, at each debate.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

Looking ahead to presidential debates in 2020, with the more and more pronounced partisanship and bias of the major media, one wonders what those debates will look like. One of the latest polls, from Zogby for example shows that 72% of Americans blame the media for spreading hate and dividing America.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...spreading-hate

It would be political malpractice for a Republican to let the media have control of a political debate given their history.

IMHO, the best option would be Lincoln-Douglas style debates with no moderator and with each candidate coming up with half the questions to ask. If moderators are needed, each candidate should choose the moderator for half of the debates, or have co-moderators, one from each side, at each debate.

[rapmarks Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close rapmarks]

Florida election, DeSantis governor. Senate too close need hand recount
15000 ballots undercounted in lee county, they are working on that and then will do the hand recount

[tonyg Goomba & Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close tonyg]

It wasn't the media spreading hate about immigrating Mexicans or refugees from Syria. And they didn't say anything encouraging about the white supremacists. Anyone drinking the cool aid about the media is ignoring facts about their tyrant.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

It wasn't the media spreading hate about immigrating Mexicans or refugees from Syria. And they didn't say anything encouraging about the white supremacists. Anyone drinking the cool aid about the media is ignoring facts about their tyrant.

A media where content analysis shows that 90% of coverage on Obama was positive while 90% on Trump is negative, and in the past election 88% on the Republican Party was negative shows a very deep seated political bias.

You might want to read federal statutes, the United States Code, to see how "immigrant" is defined in federal law. The term ONLY applies to those who properly go through the immigration process. Those who thumb their noses at that process and bust into the country on their own without any formalities are defined in federal law as "illegal aliens" The issue is not with the immigrants; it is with the illegal aliens.

As to "refugees from Syria", Europe has learned that Middle Easterners from all over claim to be from Syria or Iraq to be able to get to the west, no matter where they are really from. There has been quite a business in Turkey and Lebanon on counterfeit Syrian passports. They also lie about age to take advantage of better deals for unaccompanied minors. Norway started doing dental development checks on Muslim migrants who claimed to be minors and found that ninety percent (90%) were really adults who were lying about their age. The European media has tried to cover up the crimes, especially the sex assaults of the Muslim migrants, one exception being the Daily Mail of London, which broke the story on the mass sex assaults a couple of years ago on New Years Eve in Cologne and other cities after the German media covered it up. Germans then coined the term "rapefugees" for the Muslim migrants, who are mostly military aged men.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

It wasn't the media spreading hate about immigrating Mexicans or refugees from Syria. And they didn't say anything encouraging about the white supremacists. Anyone drinking the cool aid about the media is ignoring facts about their tyrant.

A media where content analysis shows that 90% of coverage on Obama was positive while 90% on Trump is negative, and in the past election 88% on the Republican Party was negative shows a very deep seated political bias.

You might want to read federal statutes, the United States Code, to see how "immigrant" is defined in federal law. The term ONLY applies to those who properly go through the immigration process. Those who thumb their noses at that process and bust into the country on their own without any formalities are defined in federal law as "illegal aliens" The issue is not with the immigrants; it is with the illegal aliens.

As to "refugees from Syria", Europe has learned that Middle Easterners from all over claim to be from Syria or Iraq to be able to get to the west, no matter where they are really from. There has been quite a business in Turkey and Lebanon on counterfeit Syrian passports. They also lie about age to take advantage of better deals for unaccompanied minors. Norway started doing dental development checks on Muslim migrants who claimed to be minors and found that ninety percent (90%) were really adults who were lying about their age. The European media has tried to cover up the crimes, especially the sex assaults of the Muslim migrants, one exception being the Daily Mail of London, which broke the story on the mass sex assaults a couple of years ago on New Years Eve in Cologne and other cities after the German media covered it up. Germans then coined the term "rapefugees" for the Muslim migrants, who are mostly military aged men.

[tonyg Goomba & Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close tonyg]

The difference is a good president get good coverage based on facts while a con artist crook that lies nearly all the time gets the same factual coverage that doesn't look so good. If you think the free press is the enemy of the people - it is actually you who is the enemy of Democracy.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

The difference is a good president get good coverage based on facts while a con artist crook that lies nearly all the time gets the same factual coverage that doesn't look so good. If you think the free press is the enemy of the people - it is actually you who is the enemy of Democracy.

My personal take of current news media coverage - of all stripes of the political spectrum.

I feel very much like Diogenes - I'm looking for one honest presenter - someone I can trust to simply present information that I can use to make my own informed decisions.

I used to subscribe to the Washington Post. I dropped my subscription when it was beyond apparent they had no interest in objectivity. They star their stories with a given premise, then the rest of the story is the justification for that established premise. I found it very insulting actually; if they thought I was intelligent they could simply present information objectively and I ought to reach the same conclusion as an intelligent person.

But, then Fox hasn't been any different. Nor has Maddow. Nor has anyone elese. The entire news media spectrum is almost totally occupied by partisans by a journalism school of thought that implicitly (or explicitly) believes that issue advocacy is an essential component of journalism.

And that leaves me in a position where I believe that I cannot trust almost any reporting institution to simply report information and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. I also believe that sense is shared widely in our population. And that is why when the current inmate running the asylum tweets about "fake news" and "alternative truth", those tweets have traction.

******

FWIW - two of the sources that I regard the most seriously are The Atlantic and The Hollywood Reporter. While my political beliefs are vastly different than the underlying philosophies at those sites, I have found them to be two sites that are more focused on reporting the facts and make it easiest for readers to draw their own conclusions.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

The difference is a good president get good coverage based on facts while a con artist crook that lies nearly all the time gets the same factual coverage that doesn't look so good. If you think the free press is the enemy of the people - it is actually you who is the enemy of Democracy.

My personal take of current news media coverage - of all stripes of the political spectrum.

I feel very much like Diogenes - I'm looking for one honest presenter - someone I can trust to simply present information that I can use to make my own informed decisions.

I used to subscribe to the Washington Post. I dropped my subscription when it was beyond apparent they had no interest in objectivity. They star their stories with a given premise, then the rest of the story is the justification for that established premise. I found it very insulting actually; if they thought I was intelligent they could simply present information objectively and I ought to reach the same conclusion as an intelligent person.

But, then Fox hasn't been any different. Nor has Maddow. Nor has anyone elese. The entire news media spectrum is almost totally occupied by partisans by a journalism school of thought that implicitly (or explicitly) believes that issue advocacy is an essential component of journalism.

And that leaves me in a position where I believe that I cannot trust almost any reporting institution to simply report information and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. I also believe that sense is shared widely in our population. And that is why when the current inmate running the asylum tweets about "fake news" and "alternative truth", those tweets have traction.

******

FWIW - two of the sources that I regard the most seriously are The Atlantic and The Hollywood Reporter. While my political beliefs are vastly different than the underlying philosophies at those sites, I have found them to be two sites that are more focused on reporting the facts and make it easiest for readers to draw their own conclusions.

I also put my money where my mouth is. When I find a site that I believe provides reasonable independent thought, I support by subscription.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

The difference is a good president get good coverage based on facts while a con artist crook that lies nearly all the time gets the same factual coverage that doesn't look so good. If you think the free press is the enemy of the people - it is actually you who is the enemy of Democracy.

I read the British press online. They are a refreshing change, and you get a much more objective and honest coverage of American politics. The rampant political bias in the American media remings one of Josef Goebbels. The British press is much more diverse, and that keeps them all honest.

A CNN on-air personality was caught giving debate questions ahead of time to Hillary Clinton. It is likely not the only time that happened, just the only time one of them got caught at it.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

The difference is a good president get good coverage based on facts while a con artist crook that lies nearly all the time gets the same factual coverage that doesn't look so good. If you think the free press is the enemy of the people - it is actually you who is the enemy of Democracy.

I read the British press online. They are a refreshing change, and you get a much more objective and honest coverage of American politics. The rampant political bias in the American media remings one of Josef Goebbels. The British press is much more diverse, and that keeps them all honest.

A CNN on-air personality was caught giving debate questions ahead of time to Hillary Clinton. It is likely not the only time that happened, just the only time one of them got caught at it.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

British politics is getting dicey right now, but our American media seems to ignore it. Prime Minister Theresa May struck a very one sided deal with the EU over Brexit that is so stacked in the EU's favor that her former Foreign Minister, who resigned over May selling out the UK's interests to the EU, says it makes the UK virtually a colony of the EU. Now May is having mass resignations from her government. Her coalition partner, the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, on which her parliamentary majority depends, has called it a bad deal and announced they will vote against it. Twenty members of her own party have submitted no confidence letters to the House of Commons and it looks like a vote of no confidence to bring down her government is likely.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...e-premiership/