Colin Unger

You don't need to make things up to make Joe Biden seem unappealing. He does a fine enough job of that on his own. I'm not going to speak to the legitimacy of the leak but it deserves to be vetted. One thing is clear and that's that the whole thing seems extremely fishy. A man who was kicked out of the military for drug use and has zero expertise in oil and gas and is given 20 million dollars a year to sit on the board of a ukrainian oil and gas company while his father is the Vice President of the United States. What's one thing about that that makes sense? One thing people need to keep in mind about Fox News and other Networks is that there is a big difference between the journalistic integrity on a show like Hannity or Tucker and the actual news hour. Hannity and Tucker are hosting shows that are primarly there for entertainment purposes and are opinion based. Similar to the difference you'd see during CNN's news hour and Don Lemon.

It's since been authenticated when Biden's lawyer asked if his client could have "his" laptop back.

Ok. I’m glad there are so many great sources out there that never make mistakes.

IMO they should get rid of the birther rule. You can be the governor of California and be born in Austria. But you can't be born outside of America and be president.

He would work the birther angle against any competitor who wasn't born in Canada. He hit every competitor that opposed him with as much furocity that he could regardless of if their name was Bush or Cruz.

I believe that simply jogging people’s memory that Trump was just as vigorous a birther on Ted Cruz says all we need to know about whether birtherism is racially motivated. I’m not implying that Obama was bad. I’m saying that a Biden Presidency would be somewhere in between Obama and Bush and a return to normal. Obama is someone I would have voted for both times had I been an American. My only real complaint about him was that I was expecting more of anti-war President and that didn’t end up being the case.

True. But we aren’t being offered better. It’s Trump or Biden. Biden would be worse than Obama and slightly better than Bush.

Instagram memes. Jkjk I read articles on the internet. YouTube. Democracy Now, Jimmy Dore, Styxhexenammer ect. One of the benefits of Trump losing is that things will hopefully get back to normal. However, it don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that Trump is going to lose. If Trump loses it will sure be interesting to watch what happens. I expect some fireworks either way. Personally I expect more violence if he wins than if he loses.

I agree with everything you’ve said here. I’ve never intended to suggest that Trump isn’t a gong show.

I can honestly tell you that I do not watch the mainstream media anymore. After those whole Russiagate misinformation media failure I decided to stop watching it because I didn't want to continue to be misinformed. The whole "shithole countries" thing would be an example of xenophobia if he indeed said that. I'm well aware the Trump is xenophobic. Its the kind of thing I could see him saying but witnesses are split on whether he said it or not. In terms of birtherism. Trump was wrong to get involved with the movement. He probably had a more credible case to make when he started the Ted Cruz birther movement.

I've looked into it and you appear to be mostly correct. Certainly more correct than I was. The Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. And then Harry Reid extended it to the Supreme Court as a response. I believe that the filibuster is still in place because I have heard talk that the democrats may be planning to remove the filibuster in the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option I had almost completely forgotten about Kavanaugh. However, I think we can all agree that he was foolish and unwise to have made these comments? My point was that customarily the supreme court nominee doesn't weight in on current politics and that there is good reason for that. It would not reflect well on them to do so.

There is definitely hypocrisy on in this regard on both sides. Both sides are saying the opposite as to what they said when the roles were reversed. Classic politicians.

When it comes to political parties there is always shenanigans on both sides. The fact remains that the process became partisan when the democrats changed the laws to require only a simple majority. I don’t think anyone can envision a scenario now where this process won’t be completely partisan. You don’t think the democrats would want Supreme Court justices who would want to remove people’s rights to bare arms? To further back my statement Roe V Wade is an example of where democratic appointed justices made a ruling that created new law. BTW. I’m in favor of a women’s right to choose and I’m in favor of stricter gun control. But that’s outside of the larger point.

That’s somewhat disingenuous. Just because I think that some of the most outlandish attacks on Trump haven’t been vetted doesn’t mean that I hold him in high regard. There were multiple democrats running in the primaries who I thought would present a large improvement over Donald Trump. But just like last time they ended up stacking the deck against these candidates and nominated one of the few candidates who would be worse than even Trump who has only produced a few positive outcomes during his presidency.

The process of choosing Supreme Court justices has become more partisan since the Obama Administration changed the rules to allow for a simple majority in the senate in order to approve a Supreme Court pick. You might be surprised though that often these picks don’t end up voting the way that the president who chose them is hoping. The Republicans hope to choose justices that will not create new law when voting them in. The Democrats hope to put in picks who will make rulings that will create new law so that they don’t have to. I could be wrong but I think that there are very few Supreme Court nominees in the past who have weighed in on current politics. Not sure why she should be expected to.

Hadn't heard of this one. This certainly seems worth exploring to determine what would have been different had this team still existed.

Yeah same. Probably 15 minutes and done. I can assure you I wouldn't wait 10-11 hours to vote. One vote is meaningless anyways. Even if my one vote would decide an election I'm not convinced id wait 11 hours given there's very little true difference between large tent parties lol

There have been times when he's failed to condemn White Supremacists upon request. However, that is because he's insulted by the request. Why does he have to constantly be asked that question when he's condemned White Supremacists so many time. I view it more as an ego thing where he's not going to be a puppet to every request the media makes of him. Especially when he's already done it so many times. Its really laughable and also a lie at this point when people like Joe Biden suggest that Trump to this day has yet to condemn white supremacists. The statement where he said there there were good people on both sides he was talking about protesters who were against tearing down statues who had showed up. Not the neo-nazis.

Was that intended for me? I don't think a nominee for the supreme court wants to give an indication of how they would rule on something in the future that might be much more complex than the simple questions that are being asked. Additionally, these types of questions could be construed as injecting current politics into a supreme court nomination hearing. I could see a nominee not wanting to inject themselves into politics. Politics should not be their role.

Mortality rate is the ratio of covid cases to deaths. The death rate in this article is the number of deaths with Coronavirus being listed as at least one death factor compared to the overall population. This reminds me of when CNN horribly told Americans that they should not look at the Wikileaks documents themselves because this could be illegal and only get their wikileaks news from them. They don't want people to see what's actually be said they want to crop one liners and manipulate reality to match their political leanings.

If only WHO was all on the same page.. https://disrn.com/news/who-official-stop-using-lockdowns-as-primary-virus-control-method?fbclid=IwAR30YkB12EtHkF2GH5lPf6kdGZDEqo2KPcW-CBJ018u2mZfzY-OV_rwvYks

The biggest error in judgement on Covid response in the states was New York governor Cuomo. He literally implemented a policy that required nursing homes to accept clients who already had covid which ended up leading to a massively high fatality rate in New York.

There's more to it than that. During the obama administration instead of working together with the Republicans in the senate the Democrats passed a bill that made it so that all that is required to approve a supreme court justice would be a simple majority. The Republicans were enraged by this subversion of democracy and declared that the democrats would live to regret this decision and sooner than you think. So this is payback for that more than anything. It was a very foolish policy to bring in because it ended up ensuring that Supreme Court selections would be completely partisan going forward and that's exactly what has happened. The democrats right now are being completely disingenuous when they state that they should let the people decide on the supreme court during the next election because they refuse to give a list of the type of individuals that they would nominate to the Supreme Court and they refuse to state whether or not they plan to pack the courts. In doing so they are not actually letting the people decide. Trump and his cohorts keep stating that Joe Biden will indeed stack the courts but I don't believe it. They don't want to state clearly that they won't stack the courts because they want to give progressives false hope. The democrats will love a supreme court which favors the republicans. This will allow them to propose bills that progressives want to see implemented only to have the supreme court block these bills. Then they will be able to tell progressives that we tried and you gotta keep electing us for the next 30 years to get a supreme court in their favor which will never end up happening. It reminds me of George Bush on the abortion issue. He never actually delivered on the issue of Roe v Wade and even put in a supreme court justice who is against overturning it. Republicans like him want to win votes on abortion for the next 30 years without ever actually overturning Roe v Wade. The second it got overturned there would no longer be a reason to vote for them.

In terms of the real estate lawsuit in the earl 70's its' certainly troubling. As is Biden's record from the 70's. I would have greatly preferred candidates who didn't have these types of issues from the 70's like Bernie Sanders and Tusli Gabbard. However, the system is still broken and the best candidates the ones who want to make real change are not being allowed to make waves unfortunately. Tusli Gabbard would have been my most preferred candidate but she dared to speak about the problems with the democratic party and is even more anti-war than Trump. Not sure what Bernie's policy on war would be so she's even more preferred in my mind but she's very clear on the issue. A recap of what Biden was up to in the 70's if we missed the comments that Kamala Harris made towards him in the democratic debates. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/joe-biden-record-on-busing-incarceration-racial-justice-democratic-primary-2020-explained.html