avatar
29 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    I enjoyed the discussion. Looks like you have been doing some good research.

    I would, however, caution you in trusting 'journalists'. Some writer went and interviewed a number of journalist students - asked them "why do you want to become a journalist?". The common answer - "I want to change the world." BAD ANSWER. A journalist should report the facts. Someone who wants to 'change the world' will do selective reporting, selective editing, etc. Ignore stories that hurt the side that they are on...over accentuate stories (maybe shaded too) to help the side that they want to be on.

    As to 'taking one for the team' because losing one seat won't matter....then why will the Democrats defend to the death EACH and EVERY seat? It DOES matter. AND - often the Democrats are defending the indefensible, and the newspapers help with the cover up, help to minimize things, help to mis-direct. (Guess what one of the least reported stories in the main stream media is.......the trial of Bob Menendez, and his fairly flights down to the Caribbean for sex with underage girls. (Yet - here we are focusing on allegations of a 32 YO man dating a 16, 17 or 18 year old WITH the permission of parents??) Guess how old Menendez was when he was having sex with younger girls. I find it astonishing that there is a tiny fraction of outrage for Menendez than what is out there for Moore.

    BTW - you can argue that Moore would be 1 vote of 100, and going from 52 to 51 - no big deal. WELL - what if McCain is sick and can't vote (very possible given his brain cancer) - and someone else is out (maybe a neighbor tackles a senator and hurts them and that one is out for a while....NOW - you are down to 49. Add in a RINO who doesn't want something to help Trump...and you lost, where with Moore, you win.

    THEN - how can you apply this logic to justify not voting for Trump and allowing Hillary to be elected? Are you disappointed with Gorsuch on the Supreme Court? Are you upset with all the conservative judges he has nominated to the various federal benches? If you are happy - be thankful enough conservatives voted against Hillary and were willing to vote FOR Trump - in spite of your recommendation!

    Any how....good job defending your position....but I think you need to consider do we want a society that assumes a 'guilty unless proven innocent' where 30+ year old 'recollections' (with no vetting to see if the recollections were targeted to kill an election) can become the normal. You no doubt have heard about the young feminist who recently declared she is “not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs” in the process of weeding out the bad guys, she is also harming the cause. Teen Vogue columnist Emily Lindin tweets she's 'not at all concerned' about false sexual harassment claims. "You said 'if some innocent men's reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.' Just think - some day - YOU might be the target of someone who doesn't like your beliefs, what you stand for....and they can target you with a smear or innuendo that is 5 or 10 years old, hard to prove, and all they need is a 'fellow traveler' (look up that term) to confirm that she told her friend about it several years ago. You are then TOAST.

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard Are you aware that the women who originally made the claims against Menendez admitted to Dominican police that they were paid to make those claims and that they have never even met Menedez?

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dominican-police-3-women-paid-to-make-false-claims-about-menendez/2013/03/18/f2ff253c-8fe7-11e2-9abd-e4c5c9dc5e90_story.html?utm_term=.8102d7168406

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried I am aware that there is controversy....but I am also aware that the actual facts of the matter suggest that Menendez is guilty, but there is obstruction of justice....i.e. - someone likely paid the women off to recant is as much or more likely than someone paid them to make the initial allegations. [And - per the WP article- the Daily Caller (which had the original article) isn't sure that the women who were testifying that they were paid to make the allegations were the women that the Daily Caller had originally interviewed....]

      And - there was more 'evidence' than the women's testimony originally...but not admissible in court. However - the likelihood of guilt is probably much much higher for this than for Moore. AND - if the seriousness of the charge is more important than 'rules of evidence' - then Menendez must be presumed guilty. If Menendez is given the 'benefit of the doubt' - then Moore deserves the same benefit of the doubt.

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard "As to 'taking one for the team' because losing one seat won't matter....then why will the Democrats defend to the death EACH and EVERY seat? It DOES matter. AND - often the Democrats are defending the indefensible, and the newspapers help with the cover up, help to minimize things, help to mis-direct."

      Oh the irony.

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13
      This sort of stuff serves as a great 'rebuttal' to the claims of women who support the claims of the women coming forward and making allegations. Why is this type information not printed in the mainstream media? If the goal is truth - it would be put out there. If the goal is character assassination, then it would be hidden.

      https://conservativetribune.com/vet-roy-moore-character-brothel/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=libertyalliance&utm_campaign=liberty&utm_content=libertyalliance

      The media had the woman who alleges improper touching when she was 14. Why isn't THIS information out there so that people can evaluate and see both sides? Again - if the goal is character assssination - keep the public mis-informed/ill informed. This information goes to challenge the veracity/integrity of the then 14 YO girl.

      https://conservativetribune.com/court-docs-roy-moore-allegation/

      Those that are willing to join in a stirred up mob, ignore facts, and make a rush to judgement certainly are not showing any balanced temperament, any fairness. (And - most in the mob are not willing to consider that far worse than what is alleged and unproven about Moore has been done - with far more reliable evidence, and much more recent - by leftist politicians, yet it has been swept under the rug and ignored. That makes the mob hypocritical too!

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard "Controversy" is putting it lightly. Are you arguing that the Dominican police are in the bag for the US democratic party? Because the recanting and admission they took money is part of the court/police records. And what evidence do you have that they were paid to recant? The evidence we have that they were paid to make the accusations is their own legal testimony to the authorities.

      The only ones disputing whether these are the same women is the Daily Caller, the news source that ran the original video and is accused of paying for it. And all they said was that it "it remains unclear" and that they had not verified the IDs of the women in the court case. And it is not only the women but their pimp who stated to officials that they were paid. They never positively denied it that it was the same woman.

      The woman in the affidavit was identified by the police as the woman wearing yellow in the video.

      Other respected news outlets had all turned down the original story due to a lack of credibility and the ability to verify the claims made. The Daily Caller, not so much. And they were the only news agency to run the original claims.

      You say the likelihood of guilt is much higher, but you offer no reason for that. Sorry but you are simply biased here. You are quick to refute claims for someone you see as an ideological ally, and quick to accept claims for someone you see as an opponent. That looks a lot like pure partisanship rather than a sober judgment.

      You call a double standard, then promulgate it yourself.

      We have sworn statements that the allegations against Menendez were faked, and paid for to smear him.

      If you truly think Moore is innocent, you should even more so maintain that Menendez is innocent, but I don't see you doing that here.

      Note: I have made no claims either way other than to point at a specific claim you made and show to others how it is not credible.

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard I also want to draw your attention to this article.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.2e0f78314ba6

      Its a story about a woman trying to offer false testimony against Moore in an attempt to frame the Washington Post for printing false testimony or eliciting it.

      Often it is the people screaming "LIAR" that are the liars of the world. In their self-anointed mission for "TRUTH" they are happy to lie and deceive. They don't even understand that the truth is about being impartial and critical, not about believing the "CORRECT" things.

      Journalism may have challenges, but real news organizations are still built on the principle of verification of claims and accurate reporting. They may show bias in what they choose to cover or the language they end up using, but under it is a commitment, to tell the truth. Not so much with those who scream all the mainstream media is "FAKE NEWS" They have a nasty track record of straight up lying in order to try and prove that claim.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried That's the article Ian pointed to for the second half of this debate, in the few moments where he was allowed to speak lol.

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 #moderateddebates :-)

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 and @sigfried - I am familiar with the article. It proves nothing, IMO of merit, except that WashPost decided to check things out in more detail.

      I still haven't heard any justification for leaving out details of the 2 women making the most serious allegations...Leigh Corfman (14 at the time of the alleged incident) and Beverly Young Nelson (15 or 16 at the time) and her probably fake yearbook evidence that remains hidden. If the media is very biased - they would do exactly what they have done - report ONE side and not fully vet or investigate the other side. If they were unbiased and their goal was getting at the truth - they would have found out the facts in the articles I posted, and would have reported on them. OR - even if they were too lazy to investigate the other side - then at least they could research and verify the veracity of the data/information reported (i.e. - court records showing Leigh was a problem child at 14 and was going to a court hearing where custody of her was transferred to her father) - and then report it to the public. BUT - the information remains under wraps, as if the public has no right to be fully informed.

      AND - face it - the media is very complicit in hiding the 'sins' of leftists - and in trying to either expose or smear the 'sins' (even if fabricated) of Republicans. Research how the media routinely covered up for the KNOWN sexual misconduct of JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton, and various Democrat Senators and Congressman. So - suddenly we are to trust the media when they report on 35+ year old allegations that have ZERO EVIDENCE of the truthfulness?

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/11/28/nprs-cokie-roberts-press-corps-covered-congressional-sexual-misconduct-years/

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 and @sigfried - and - a 3rd woman who claims that Moore 'groped her' - around 1990's....yet more court documents show that she possibly has a reason to lie about Moore - and she has a record that should be exposed - IF the media isn't merely trying to influence the election. Please explain, if you can, why the mainstream media SHOULD report on allegations with zero evidence, and the only thing to back the allegations are friends.....yet NOT report on facts available (like court records) that suggest there is more behind the story?? Should the media fully report - or only report on the things that support the 'rush to judgement' and 'mob mentality' of punishment first - trial later on (or never)??

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/26/court-documents-roy-moore-accuser-violent-nature-history-criminal-fraud-family/

    • 2 years ago

      Relevant info: Dems are moral than Republicans.

      http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/john-conyers-push-to-resign/index.html

    • 2 years ago

      @iantreyparish Surely you jest? GO back to my example of Cong. Gerry Studds vs. Cong. Mark Foley. Look at how the Democrats rallied around Clinton. This one example doesn't make Dems more moral. It is years too late. AND -- this is 'without cost' because Conyers is from a hugely safe leftist district, and the replacement person will be equally left, equally harmful to minorities...equally harmful to the Constitution.

      Check out this article by Walter E. Williams. Tell me why blacks support the Democrat party - when all the Democrat party is hurt minorities? This article is just one way that minorities are hurt ....Democrats oppose school choice, oppose accountability, etc.

      http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268546/black-self-sabotage-walter-williams

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard Or more realistically,

      Both sides will lie, cheat, dismiss relevant evidence, and do whatever is possible to defend their man, and
      Both sides will lie, cheat, and dismiss relevant evidence to attack the opposing sides man.

      There's nothing about having a R over your name that makes you moral or immoral.
      There's nothing about having a D over your name that makes you moral or immoral.

      It's just tribalistic partisan bias. It's why you hate everything democrat and will believe any allegations against them even when they've been disproven, but then turn around and willfully ignore any relevant evidence against Republicans. It's why you willfully dismiss anything from news sources you can call "mainstream" and then you hold up as models of journalistic integrity "conservativetribune" "Breitbart" and "70news". There's no way to reach any level of objectivity when you are determined to view the world through a purely partisan lense.

      "When you look at someone through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags." - From the show BoJack Horseman

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 I wish you were more thoughtful in your analysis. Point of fact - there is a very biased media that works to hold the Republicans accountable. (And - like in the Moore allegations, the media will bring forth facts to support the story line - but will hide (or fail to investigate) facts that don't support their story line.) Tell me where there is a large body of main stream media that does the same to the Democrats. I can point to the coverups of Clinton, JFK, LBJ, Ted Kennedy, etc. - to show that there is NO balance in the Media. I can point to the very recent article - quoting NPR in which ..Cokie Roberts implied that Conyers' predatory behavior was an open secret among the press corps.

      Prove I dismiss 'evidence'. You won't find it. I might dismiss unproven allegations with no evidence to support the allegation. I don't hate everything Democrat - prove otherwise. List policies by Democrats - and show that I hate the policy and why it is wrong for me to hate the policy and I would support the policy if it was put forward by a Republican. You can't - so your statement is fatally flawed and ignorant.

      You show extreme leftist slant in your 3rd para.; I didn't hold those sources up as 'models of journalistic integrity' (again - stupid statement with no basis for it). I merely pointed out that a news source listed information that should be reviewed. If a conservative web site that you hate has an article and it mentions that COURT RECORDS SHOW X, Y and Z....then leftists might dismiss everything because it was an article that was printed in a conservative web site.....but intelligent people (that lets out most leftists) would actually check to see if there WERE court records and that, in fact, the court records DO SHOW X, Y and Z. I am more than willing to look at FACTS put forth by leftist media. For Moore- the available facts put forth by leftist media is weak, no hard evidence, lots of hearsay evidence, and claims by women that can't be reliably validated in any court. AND - the data from leftist media omits real facts (like court records discussed in conservative articles).....

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard OK let's take a look at your Tina Johnson argument.

      The court documents in question are from a custody battle in which Tina hired Moore to represent her and her mother. They are documents entered by the opposing side to convince the jury that she should not have custody. Custody court battles are notoriously nasty.

      You say "she has a reason to lie about Moore" but you never say what that reason is. In court, she was called "violent" and she'd had trouble with the law. But Moore represented her and her mother. It was her mother who won custody which was what Johnson wanted in this instance (as opposed to her former husband who was the one fighting in court against her).

      So I don't see what this motive is supposed to be. Moore was her lawyer and won the case on her mother's behalf. What motive are you claiming?

      The mainstream media did report on this case because it was in the context of its resolution that Johnson claimed Moore grabbed her ass and asked her out on a date. I went and looked at the TODAY show coverage and MSN and found both mention the custody battle.

      Here is what the media reported.

      "Tina Johnson" claimed Moore groped her. Is that a lie? She has made this claim has her not? She doesn't have any special motive for lying about it. She does not have any political engagement we know of. She has no special financial motivation.

      Moore is a story, and an accuser that checks out is part of that story. You don't have to believe her claim, but neither is there any special reason not to believe it. It's a he-said she-said. You can make up your own mind and the news is only reporting the claim she is making, not stating whether it is proven true or not. That is how good journalists operate.

      And the other article I showed you demonstrates that they do corroboration on their stories. Every part of her story overall checks out. She was Moore's mother's client at the time claimed. They have found no strong political connection etc...

      So, Please answer this question: What was this ultierior motive of hers you allege?

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard "The liberal media is hiding X,Y,Z"

      That's a load of horse shit. What you want is a media that tells you exactly what you want to hear, and anything else is hiding things from you. Tell me exactly what is being hidden and by whom.

      What you want is for the media to actively slander and discredit witnesses who attack people you like. That is generally not their job. Their job is to report what they think is credible information. They are aware of things like Ad-Hominem fallacies where you say a thing is false due to the source alone. They are also aware of the long history of victim shaming used to discredit people who challenge those in power for their abuse of power.

      The media did not hide anything Bill Clinton did. They were right out there reporting on the scandal as it took place. In the days of JFK and LBJ, the media (all of it) didn't report on presidential personal lives as a matter fo course, though it was starting to change. Same goes for republican's that held office in that erra.

      Your Breitbart article is not evidence of anyone hiding anything. It's just about Cokie Roberts commenting on the culture of power and abuse in washington where she is commenting on Conyers being a letch. Mind you this is a liberal media icon on a liberal media program CBS criticizing a liberal politician. I'm not sure what the hell you think is being hidden here.

      And I don't have to work very hard to see mainstream media articles about beloved liberals getting shamed for sexual misconduct. Franken is all over the mainstream news, so is Weinstein.

      You are missing the boat here. The boat is this. The days of treating women like shit are running out. Whether you are rich or poor or liberal or conservative, no ass grabbing is going to be acceptable going forward. Keep your hands to yourself boys and girls!

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried Man - you sure are getting defensive. It is well known that the journalists of the 1960's KNEW of JFK's 'whoring around' - and kept it secret. FACT. Sure- it was 'policy'....and only NOW are we seeing the MSM decide that maybe covering for leftists might not be good.

      The MSM refused to air the interview of Juanita Broaddrick before the 1992 election, because it was so 'compelling'. (It also had far more credible allegations and more 'support' than the Moore accusations.) And - for leftists - that passes as biased. For you - my comments are 'horseshit'?

      I see you refuse to discuss why the media would not evaluate the information dug up about the 3 accusers with the most serious allegations - except to throw more accusations and horseshit at me.

      BTW - I guess you are deliberately being obtuse. Cokie Roberts states what was 'common knowledge' among the press. Okay - the press knows for years - but refuses to investigate and report....I would think someone of high intelligence would see this like the Sherlock Holmes observation about the dog that didn't bark. Tells volumes that the journalist watchdog is toothless to ever attack leftists. (And - I am sure you were smart enough to discern that, but not honest enough to admit it.)

      AND - my point is that only NOW are we seeing the media NOW starting to expose leftists. Find me a number of serious articles 5, 10 or 20 years ago. Show me how 'unbiased' the Media was in how they reported the Cong. Mark Foley (2006) vs. Cong. Gerry Studds (1983) affairs. Foley - wow...instead of sending inappropriate texts to young pages - you would have thought he actually had sex with a 17 year old page.... oh - that was Studds - who got a standing ovation from other Democrats in Congress....and the media was far kinder to him. Guess you have 'selective outrage' about sex with minors....Studds - proven ...and even censured - but continued to be re-elected inspite of having sex with a minor - on the other hand, you reserve your outrage for Moore -where there is no evidence - and the allegations are far less serious than what has been given a pass on Democrats.

      If the media is truly investigative - how about digging into Clinton's flights to the Caribbean on the "Lolita Express" - and how the justice system gave a known pedophile Jeffrey Epstein a big pass in prosecution. What is out there is seedy and sleazy....but the mainstream media won't really discuss Clinton going down to the Caribbean with Jeffrey - and dumping his Secret Service protection. Coverage of this would hurt Hillary - Bill's biggest enabler. Yes - selective reporting.

      AND - here is a great article that shows some of the sleazy complicity between journalists and leftist politicians. AND - the beauty of this article - is that it shows that something might come out soon that will hurt the Democrat Party and the Clintons.... However - I don't expect to see much of this in the mainstream media until politicians get indicted. The public won't see this for a long time if they rely on leftist MSM sources.

      https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/will-shocking-new-fusion-gps-revelations-take-down-hillary-clinton-and-dnc/

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard

      A. I'm not defensive, I'm being Offensive in tearing down the bad arguments you are making. I've got nothing to defend here. I think you are being a dope by slavishly attacking liberals and slavishly defending conservatives and so I'm tearing down your arguments one by one.

      B. You dodged my question so I will repeat it "What motive did Tina Johnston have for smearing Moore?" Put up or shut up.

      C. MSN didn't exist in the era of Kennedy. It wasn't launched until 1995.

      D. The incident which changed the way presidents and presidential candidates were covered was Gary Heart. That happened in 1988, and political coverage has not been the same since. And guess what, Gary Heart was the leading Democratic candidate and a hardcore liberal. The press is not shy about going after liberals when there is evidence against liberals.

      E. Juanita Broaddrick was secretly tapped in 1992 but actively refused to make a statement to the media. The media is not in the habit of playing illicit tapings of people when the people themselves refuse to speak on the subject or corroborate the content of it. And let me remind you MSN didn't fucking exist in 1992 so that might have some small thing to do with them refusing to air the "interview" that was secretly taped without her knowledge. She also denied the allegations in a deposition but later recanted that in a famous interview in 1999 claiming he had indeed raped her. All of this was covered by the "liberal" media.

      F. Cokie Roberts is a journalist. She doesn't report on rumors or things "everybody knows" She'd have to have actual testimony from someone claiming direct harassment. And at the time, ass slaps and the like were not considered especially scandal worthy. Like I said, it's a new era with some new standards of behavior. Women are tired of that shit and there are enough men that think it's despicable behavior to make it stick now. They are not hiding anything because that shit wasn't news back in the day. The whole purpose of that discussion was to say that times are changing and men in power won't get a pass going forward.

      G. Well, yes NOW, because social standards are changing. Duh. It's not about liberals and conservatives, it's about men and women. You want to make it about politics. You shouldn't.

      H. Clinton is fucking done. He's gone. He's not in the government, he's not working anywhere. He's not of all that much interest to anyone but folks with a political Axe to grind. The major news media tries to be RELEVANT to the world we live in today, not play hack for the politics of yesteryear. Epstein has been covered by all the major media outlets. All those articles are just one google search away for anyone who wants to see them.

      I. As to your article on fusion-GPS you can read about that in the "liberal" media as well. Ooooh it shows "something might come out" ya, that's hard-hitting shit! Also this weeks headlines "stuff might happen" and "tomorrow is another day." You might not expect it in mainstream media but it is there if you bother looking. Its called "Google" and it's real easy to use.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried I will respond to the rest later....but get a clue....I clearly typed MSM....main stream media. That is a common acronym. So - try to be a little less arrogant with how you are attacking me...especially when you are so off target.

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard Sorry for that mistake. I'm was not privy to that acronym. That at least makes more sense, but no more substance to your case. The mainstream media covered all the issues you talked about.

      I'm a reflector Michael If you talk arrogantly, I'll talk arrogantly too. You have been arrogant as all get out in this commentary, and many others so that's what I give you in return. When you speak like a gentleman, as you did in our recent live discussion, that's what you get from me back.

      I'll happily dial it down if you do the same and stop saying things like "but intelligent people (that lets out most leftists) " So long as you keep up with the low blows and snide remarks, you get Aggressive Sig to debate with.

      So, I agree to change my tone, but I'm going to point out any time hereafter you make a provacative value statement rather than simply arguing the facts.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried
      A. My 'defense' of Republicans will only occur if there is no factual evidence to support charges. Show me where I have supported someone who was clearly guilty of sleaze or criminality.

      B. Tina Johnson (not Johnston...I won't play your game and accuse you of making up a new accuser - I will recognize you made a typo.....) See Gateway Pundit article Tina's reason for smearing Moore - simple REVENGE for him doing his job. You might not like conservative sites - but skim it for 'factual statements' like "One affidavit signed by Johnson’s mother while she was represented by Moore accused Johnson of having a “violent nature” and noted that she “has been treated by a psychiatrist when she was approximately 15 years of age.” Johnson was a teenage mother." SO - those are facts that show Johnson's character is NOT impeachable....and she has every reason to try to lie to smear him. (AND - if you honest - you will acknowledge that I present a good answer to your challenge. AND - if you are honest - you might wonder why these facts weren't posted in the MSM....yes - MainStream Media (not Microsoft Network....hardly a venue for general reporting).

      http://thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/another-roy-moore-accuser-bites-dust-court-documents-reveal-tina-johnsons-criminal-abusive-past/

      C. Dealt this already. Reader error - not mine!

      D. Gary Hart was not the 'preferred candidate' ...Dukkais was. And - sometimes things are so outrageous that to not report - hurts the brand. Sort of like in 2004 when the MSM (remember?) failed to report on John Edwards having a mistress, complete with child (while still married to a wife slowly dying of cancer.) BUT - Edwards was liked by the MSM (got it now??) and so they let things slip until the National Enquirer broke the story...and this was ...what - 16 years after Gary Hart supposedly changed the media? Guess the change wasn't too detailed.

      E. Go back to all the stuff that was in the 'alternate' media (conservative media) in 1992 - which was ignored, but then later on, proven true. Things like Clinton using troopers while Governor to procure mistresses and hide his dalliances - including his long term consensual affair with Gennifer Flowers. (that would be improper use of gov't resources...) The media certainly had no appetite to go after a Democrat.

      F. Cokie is a journalist. Any credible journalist is always looking for good/new stories...and is supposed to 'comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable' ...and 'challenge truth to power.' If the swamp culture is harassing women, and 'everyone knew' but no one wanted to investigate - it helps prove that the MSM is part of the swamp culture.

      G. Oh...what you really mean, without admitting it is 'social standards are now changing for Leftists' I doubt you can show where the media helped cover for a conservative or Republican. Yes - it IS about politics. When the MSM is shilling and protecting the left and is quick to blame or even focus on tawdry but unprovable accusations for people on the right - the media HAS become an arm of the leftist political groups.

      H. Agree that Clinton is done. BUT - the Democrat party still retains him as their 'elder statesman'. He was relevant up to the 2016 election - because he was a sleazy and evil character who was protected by the media, the Democrat party AND his wife Hillary. NOW - no reason that the House could not re-impeach him for past offenses (now more thoroughly known)...or at least pass a Resolution (a sense of Congress) that Clinton acted improperly as President and deserves censure. The Senate should convict if impeached again - and he should lose all retirement benefits AND lose his Secret Service protection. Do this - and we can see if the Democrats would throw him under the 'bus' or would still protect him.

      Epstein hasn't been covered as much as he should. How about looking into the sweet heart deals he was able to get....to escape charges that should have brought. Lots of 'swamp creatures' in the government, especially the DoJ. Embeds (lots of leftists) tend to go very soft on their own, while coming down very hard on the 'other side.'
      Interesting topic for debate: "The Dept. of Justice is often corrupt as can be seen by comparing the treatment of Sandy Berger and Scooter Libby." Comparing the facts of each case, how the 2 were treated, and the punishments accorded, compared to the gravity of their offenses is a slam dunk for proof.

      I. I haven't seen much in the MSM of the details in the IBD article. As more stuff comes out, the MSM will have to start reporting it a bit more, or be totally embarrassed when the final stuff comes out. I do use Google - and I frequently try to compare what is on MSM vs. 'alternate' (conservative) media. HOWEVER - here is an important thing - the vast number of voters are 'news ignorant' - for many -they don't get news off the internet - they get it from what they watch on TV.

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard

      B. Yes you gave the motive. Thank you. Revenge on her mother's lawyer in a custody case. Plausible but by no means damning. (I'd gotten the impression she was in court against her ex-husband, but a CNN article made it much more clear that she was having the dispute with her mother.) But this is not the sort of thing most journalists are going to focus on because it's not proof of anything one way or another. It just looks like victim shaming and blaming.

      D. Gary Heart was considered a leading candidate. (the scandal was pre-caucuses). He nearly beat Mondale the prior cycle. He was a liberal darling for the most part. Edwards was covered by the MSM. The New York Post actually mentioned it prior to the Enquirer. The Huffington Post covered it the same day, and New York magazine the day after.

      E. I'm pretty sure all that got covered in the MSM. Tons about Gennifer Flowers, White Water, etc... Again a quick google search can turn up tons of that stuff. Does the small press get on stories earlier and report with less corroboration? Yes, they do. But tabloids often get out in front of MSM for that exact reason. And they get stuff wrong more often as well.

      F. No, It shows that at that time, no one thought anyone would do anything about it. Journalists aren't always looking for a story if the story isn't meaningful or is just based on rumors. You are grasping at straws here. Again, the whole context of that discussion is the changing social climate.

      G. See, now you are doing douchy bullshit again. Trying to imagine what I am thinking so it fits your stereotypes so that you can just dismiss it. That's how you get me pissed off. What I mean is this...

      Society as a whole has changed. Men and women do not accept that powerful men (or women) get a free pass for grabbing ass or boobs or making lewd comments to women. They don't get to have casting couch sessions without asking, or have sex with passed out girls or to solicit blowjobs for promotions. Nor dating teen girls when you are a grown man, nor sending pictures of your dick to people who didn't ask for it and so on. That is what I mean and I mean it to apply to everyone. Understand now?

      I've always felt that way myself. I find Bill Clinton morally repugnant and always have. He's a sleazy slimy misogynist. Trump likewise. Moore, I think likely is a little behind those two but still plenty creepy. Michael Moore, Weinstein, Franken, fuck those assholes! I'm glad the bell is tolling for these jerks one and all.

      H. Sorry but I'm not getting on the spite train. Congress has better things to do than impeaching ex-presidents. That would be a monumental waste of time. That is pure partisan hackery of the highest order. You are on par with all the idiots on the left calling to impeach Trump or who used to call for Impeaching Bush sr and Bush jr. It's just pure bullshit partisan fuckery.

      I'm sorry if the MSM doesn't punish people hard enough for your tastes but their job is to be journalists, not pundits for a political viewpoint. Unlike you, they are not cheerleaders. Anything less than 100% partisan seems to strike you as a bias.

      I. I don't watch broadcast TV at all so I can't speak to that. I read and I can't google broadcasts so I can't really speak to the content on the airwaves moment to moment. I also can't help people who are ignorant, nor can you.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried Some quick thoughts:

      D. & E. - we remember different media emphasis.
      (Jump to I.) - Surveys show that most people tend to get news from main network news broadcasts -about 60 million people 'watch' in passing ABC/CBS/NBC news. The numbers of those watching FOX News, CNN, MSNBC - are much smaller - almost to the point of insignificance compared to the main TV network broadcasts. Even more amazing - lots of people get their 'news' from Late Night Shows....and we know how 'balanced' they are! (yes - a little snark on that.) SO - if we see main news networks over a period of time spend 80 minutes on Moore ...and in the same time frame - Sen. Bob Menendez is IN COURT being tried for abusing his office...and it gets less than 3 minutes of news over the same time? Which one is is story based on information that can't be validated/verified...would NEVER be valid in a court of law....and which one is REAL. (The court is real...the reasons for taking Menendez into court are real; whether he is found innocent or guilty will be another story.)

      H. 'spite train'.. I take a look at it from a point of accountability. A lesson in history - the Navy will hold 'court' and do fact finding to assess accountability where accidents happen. In 1952 - the USS Hobson, DD464, was sunk after a collision with an aircraft carrier. The board investigated and reported out the findings of the negligence of the CO. There was an outcry about 'besmirching' the reputation of a dead man. Read the editorial on this page...it might give you insight into the duty/responsibility of military....and how ACCOUNTABILITY is an essential part of the military. They have responsibilities ...and with responsibility comes accountability. Former Presidents should not be able to escape accountability for mis-deeds in office. I would hope you think the editorial by WSJ worth the read.

      http://boards.fool.com/quothobsons-choicequot-30298792.aspx?sort=whole

      In general - I am typical of many conservative libertarians...I will hold all representatives to the same standards. I am not giving Moore a pass on serious mis-deeds, because none have been proved. Allegations are not equal to clear convincing evidence that could stand on its own in a court. I supported Trump, in spite of his buffoonery and potential problems, because it was CLEAR to me that Hillary was guilty of several criminal issues, and if we had an honest DoJ - she would have been found guilty of violations of national security issues...and would have been ineligible to ever hold a federal position of any type. Why would I not vote for a 'grab them by the pussy' and vote for a criminal? Saying this doesn't make me a hypocrite - it makes me a realist. Where have I ever supported someone on the 'right' who had as many serious known problems - like Clinton in 1992 - over a less 'crooked' candidate on the left?

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard I am not the least sympathetic to your claims about Hillary as a proven crook, it just sounds like a double standard where you believe what you want to believe because of your political bias. I've debated lots of claims against Hillary and never found anything all that compelling that shows her a criminal. I have on the other hand read a lot of lies in that regard.

      But you can have your opinions on the matter. So should we go ahead and impeach Nixon then as well? What is the point? Impeachment is to remove them from office, they aren't in office so it's useless.

      I'm all for the Navy figuring out what went wrong, but I couldn't care less about punishing a dead man. Dead people cannot be punished or held accountable.

      I may be a moralist in that I hold myself and others to moral values, but I'm also a pragmatist where if there is nothing to be gained, I really don't care to do something just because it is a show of virtue or righousness.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried I would be happy to enter into a 'debate/discussion' on why Hillary would be a crook and a criminal - if we had a DoJ that had integrity and followed the law. The evidence is out in the open for anyone who knows anything about national security and the law pertaining to protecting national secrets. IMHO - it is a 'slam dunk' case.

      To defend Hillary - one must agree with the corrupt Comey that while the law on handling classified material requires clear intent to mis-handle classified material - even though the text of the law states 'gross negligence' in handling. [Comparable -you get into a car and drive drunk. You don't intend to kill anyone - but if you do, there is an immediate presumption of 'gross negligence' - and you can be convicted of negligent homicide, even though you had zero intent to kill someone. Same sort of rules for handling classified material.) Listen to Comey's press conference where he lists all the classified materials found. Job done to show she had classified material where it doesn't belong. All we do then is look at the law, look how others have been prosecuted for far less...and only Comey's 're-write' got her off in July 2016.

      Then -there is the book "Clinton Cash" - and it documents the trail of donations to the Clinton Foundation coinciding with favored access to her as Sec'y of State...and big speaking fees to Bill. AND - her failure to follow the Memorandum of Understanding when she became Sec'y of State as to reporting donations (many she didn't), etc. Clearly sleazy. Plenty of leftist claim that the book was 'discredited' - without offering evidence on how it was discredited. AND - right now, with more information coming to light on Uranium One - it appears that Clinton Cash was only scratching the surface of real corruption. We might see more soon!

  • 2 years ago

    I'm 18 minutes into this debate. I think Pro has talked for 16 minutes, and Con hasn't even been allowed to make his opening statement yet. It's kind of ridiculous.