Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

Trump cannot win without Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin.  If other farmers in other states "benefit" from this avalanche of  ag welfare, it's totally worthwhile for him if it works.

I don't understand how this free money is ok under NAFTA 2.0. 

It should not be ok.  They can criticize our supply management, but dole out billions in subsidies to farmers.  All their subsidies are doing is creating an artificial economy that is driving up the price of land.  Land in South Dakota isn't much better than land in MB., yet the prices are double.

Also, the colonies in the states always tell us - the money they get from farm subsidies, they pretty much have to turn around and spend it on medical insurance.  There is really no net benefit. 

Petty, petty man

 

Meadows doubles down on White House pandemic response: 'We're not going to control it'
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/522763-meadows-doubles-down-on-white-house-pandemic-response-were-not-going-to

So Trump will no longer continue to talk about the "fantastic job" or "rounding the bend"on the virus?  Oh sure.
Meadows is starting to sound like Scott Atlas.  
Now 5 Pence staffers infected.  Fortunately the WH have now declared that Pence is an "essential worker"- the designation given to first responders and front line medical workers - so of course, he can keep campaigning.
What next? Another super spreader in the Rose Garden, to swear in Barrett?

"Well, the only person waving a white flag along with his white mask is Joe Biden,"
Mark Meadows

An alternative universe, indeed.

Trump : coverage of covid, being bad for Donald Trump, should be against the law.

"President Donald Trump argued on Monday morning that it ought to be against the law for the news media to cover the pandemic ahead of the elections as the COVID-19 death toll in the U.S. surpasses 225,000.

 

“We have made tremendous progress with the China Virus, but the Fake News refuses to talk about it this close to the Election,” he tweeted. “COVID, COVID, COVID is being used by them, in total coordination, in order to change our great early election numbers. Should be an election law violation!”

 

 

11 minutes ago, Mark F said:

the Fake News refuses to talk about it this close to the Election,”

JJ Pryor - examined 102 news sites on the news bias chart

Which sites are actually biased?
Which news sources consistently provide more fiction than facts?
How impactful are the relationships between reliability, bias, and traffic?

The aim was to rank the publications by the least amount of bias with the most amount of reliability in their reporting.
The following 15 news sources ranked the highest under this metric.

🟢AP, 81.2%
🟢Reuters, 80.7%
🟢Weather.com, 80.5%
🟢ABC news, 77.3%
🟢The Advocate, 77.3%
🟢Bloomberg, 74.4%
🟢National Public Radio, 78.0%
🟢Wall Street Journal, 75.5%
🟢The Hill, 72.2%
🟢Financial Times, 73.0%
🟢LA Times, 76.4%
🟢PBS, 74.8%
🟢Al Jazeera, 77.3%
🟢CBS, 73.5%
🟢Fortune, 70.5%
None of the above news sources have a high enough score to be considered as being biased (their reporting is largely neutral in terms of politics — a very good thing)

https://towardsdatascience.com/how-statistically-biased-is-our-news-f28f0fab3cb3

 

2 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

 

JJ Pryor - examined 102 news sites on the news bias chart

Which sites are actually biased?
Which news sources consistently provide more fiction than facts?
How impactful are the relationships between reliability, bias, and traffic?

The aim was to rank the publications by the least amount of bias with the most amount of reliability in their reporting.
The following 15 news sources ranked the highest under this metric.

🟢AP, 81.2%
🟢Reuters, 80.7%
🟢Weather.com, 80.5%
🟢ABC news, 77.3%
🟢The Advocate, 77.3%
🟢Bloomberg, 74.4%
🟢National Public Radio, 78.0%
🟢Wall Street Journal, 75.5%
🟢The Hill, 72.2%
🟢Financial Times, 73.0%
🟢LA Times, 76.4%
🟢PBS, 74.8%
🟢Al Jazeera, 77.3%
🟢CBS, 73.5%
🟢Fortune, 70.5%
None of the above news sources have a high enough score to be considered as being biased (their reporting is largely neutral in terms of politics — a very good thing)

https://towardsdatascience.com/how-statistically-biased-is-our-news-f28f0fab3cb3

 

I wonder what 20% of Weather.com is biased, and biased against what?

3 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Trump : coverage of covid, being bad for Donald Trump, should be against the law.

"President Donald Trump argued on Monday morning that it ought to be against the law for the news media to cover the pandemic ahead of the elections as the COVID-19 death toll in the U.S. surpasses 225,000.

 

“We have made tremendous progress with the China Virus, but the Fake News refuses to talk about it this close to the Election,” he tweeted. “COVID, COVID, COVID is being used by them, in total coordination, in order to change our great early election numbers. Should be an election law violation!”

 

They go low.....they go lower....

15 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

 

JJ Pryor - examined 102 news sites on the news bias chart

Which sites are actually biased?
Which news sources consistently provide more fiction than facts?
How impactful are the relationships between reliability, bias, and traffic?

The aim was to rank the publications by the least amount of bias with the most amount of reliability in their reporting.
The following 15 news sources ranked the highest under this metric.

🟢AP, 81.2%
🟢Reuters, 80.7%
🟢Weather.com, 80.5%
🟢ABC news, 77.3%
🟢The Advocate, 77.3%
🟢Bloomberg, 74.4%
🟢National Public Radio, 78.0%
🟢Wall Street Journal, 75.5%
🟢The Hill, 72.2%
🟢Financial Times, 73.0%
🟢LA Times, 76.4%
🟢PBS, 74.8%
🟢Al Jazeera, 77.3%
🟢CBS, 73.5%
🟢Fortune, 70.5%
None of the above news sources have a high enough score to be considered as being biased (their reporting is largely neutral in terms of politics — a very good thing)
 
https://towardsdatascience.com/how-statistically-biased-is-our-news-f28f0fab3cb3

 

You left out some very fine news sources...featuring some of my favourites...

🔴World Truth TV — 11.6%

🟢National Enquirer — 15.1%

🔴The Gateway Pundit — 19.4%

🔴InfoWars — 20.3%

🔴NewsPunch — 22.5%

🔵Wonkette — 23.9%

🔴WorldNetDaily — 26.5%

🔴Twitchy — 26.7%

🔵Palmer Report — 27.6%

🔴PJ Media — 28.7%

🔵Bipartisan Report — 30.1%

🔵Occupy Democrats — 31.3%

🔴Breitbart — 32.2%

🔵Alternet — 33.4%

🔴Conservative Review — 34.1%

🔴The American Spectator — 34.4%

🔴The Federalist — 34.7%

🔵ShareBlue — 35.5%

🔵Crooks and Liars — 36%

🔴American Thinker — 36.1%

🔵Daily Kos — 36.2%

🔴Daily Caller — 37.4%

This World Truth TV must be pretty special - to be rated that far below the Gateway Pundit

Ok, looked at World Truth TV...

Need more gin

 

This seems like the best step to take, so naturally, it won’t be allowed to happen..

 

3 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Is it even Republican loyalty or just out and out hatred of all things “Democrat”?

If you asked someone why they are Republican and they pointed to smaller government, OK maybe. If they said they wanted reduced spending and fiscal conservatism, it would be easy to point out that the deficit has consistently grown under Republican leaders and shrink under Democrat leaders since Reagan. If you listed off “Republican” values that are “pro-life” only until the baby is born but then ignores the welfare of that child growing up, does not support sufficient health care for anyone but the rich, encourages voter suppression, gerrymandering, trampling of equal rights for women, people of colour, LGBTQ, puts draconian protection of gun rights over the simplest measures to protect kids in schools from mass shootings,all under the guise of “respecting biblical teachings”, then would most stand up and say, “yes I am a proud Republican because I believe that others should be repressed more than me”? 
 

Instead it comes across more as a “never a socialist radical lefty”. And hey, I am certain it works both ways, and Liberals point to the flaws of the other Conservative side more than touting why liberalism is the way to be. People too easily can denigrate what someone else will stand for and not have the courage to own what they themselves stand for. Easier to cast stones than stand up to personal scrutiny. 

I believe it was Tom Friedman who explained it as Trump diehard supporters don't necessarily vote for Trump because they absolutely adore him and his platforms, they vote for Trump because they hate people who hate Trump and won't vote for him.  

26 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

This seems like the best step to take, so naturally, it won’t be allowed to happen..

 

At this point it's entirely up to individual states to handle their Covid business. The Feds are too dumb and too corrupt to do anything. 

 

I feel bad for those stuck with Red State Governors. So many will needlessly die. Far more than they are reporting now and into the future. 

President Donald Trump has claimed over and over in the past week -- at campaign rallies, on Twitter and in an interview with "60 Minutes" -- that the US is only seeing so many coronavirus cases because the country is doing so much testing.

Which translates into:
“I do more lying than anybody else in the world, so naturally more people will notice”

 

A great response to Kushner's casual racism today:

 

Dr, Trump on the advice of his radiologist is now of the opinion that Covid is a conspiracy against him, yup everyone affected by it including the dead are all in on it.

That’s outbreaks, not cases...

“At least 21 cases have been traced to outbreaks occurring at rally events in Bemidji on Sept. 18, a speech held by Vice President Mike Pence on Sept. 24 in Minneapolis, and another rally held by the President on Sept. 30 in Duluth, the Minnesota Department of Health said in an email to CNN.”

 

4 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

 

Advantage Biden in PA then

 

6 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Is it even Republican loyalty or just out and out hatred of all things “Democrat”?

If you asked someone why they are Republican and they pointed to smaller government, OK maybe. If they said they wanted reduced spending and fiscal conservatism, it would be easy to point out that the deficit has consistently grown under Republican leaders and shrink under Democrat leaders since Reagan. If you listed off “Republican” values that are “pro-life” only until the baby is born but then ignores the welfare of that child growing up, does not support sufficient health care for anyone but the rich, encourages voter suppression, gerrymandering, trampling of equal rights for women, people of colour, LGBTQ, puts draconian protection of gun rights over the simplest measures to protect kids in schools from mass shootings,all under the guise of “respecting biblical teachings”, then would most stand up and say, “yes I am a proud Republican because I believe that others should be repressed more than me”? 
 

Instead it comes across more as a “never a socialist radical lefty”. And hey, I am certain it works both ways, and Liberals point to the flaws of the other Conservative side more than touting why liberalism is the way to be. People too easily can denigrate what someone else will stand for and not have the courage to own what they themselves stand for. Easier to cast stones than stand up to personal scrutiny. 

Totally.  I was being generous when i called it Republican loyalty.

6 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Is it even Republican loyalty or just out and out hatred of all things “Democrat”?

If you asked someone why they are Republican and they pointed to smaller government, OK maybe. If they said they wanted reduced spending and fiscal conservatism, it would be easy to point out that the deficit has consistently grown under Republican leaders and shrink under Democrat leaders since Reagan. If you listed off “Republican” values that are “pro-life” only until the baby is born but then ignores the welfare of that child growing up, does not support sufficient health care for anyone but the rich, encourages voter suppression, gerrymandering, trampling of equal rights for women, people of colour, LGBTQ, puts draconian protection of gun rights over the simplest measures to protect kids in schools from mass shootings,all under the guise of “respecting biblical teachings”, then would most stand up and say, “yes I am a proud Republican because I believe that others should be repressed more than me”? 
 

Instead it comes across more as a “never a socialist radical lefty”. And hey, I am certain it works both ways, and Liberals point to the flaws of the other Conservative side more than touting why liberalism is the way to be. People too easily can denigrate what someone else will stand for and not have the courage to own what they themselves stand for. Easier to cast stones than stand up to personal scrutiny. 

 

I think it was @17to85  who brilliantly said that there are so many "Republicans who are willing to let trump **** in their mouths as long as dems have to smell it."

And from what we've seen in the last 4 years... it really holds true... its nuts!

 

Edited October 26, 20205 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

7 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Is it even Republican loyalty or just out and out hatred of all things “Democrat”?

the National Review (not linking) posted an article about how electing trump was a "middle finger" to all the evil progressives in the USA.

No platform, no policies, no coherent philosophy, no health care plan, no COVID plan. 

Just a middle finger.

That's all the GOP is now, that's all they can be.  Reactionary anger.

A lot of Trump supporters have simply been told over and over that they are 'victims" of those "elites" that have been oppressing them and holding them back.   
Problem is that over the years....the term "elites" has been expanded..... to include any media, that don't sing that song, educators, scientists, environmentalists, and a lot of people (usually some form of "liberals") who might look for social justice and fight against bigotry, racism and misogyny.   It took years to get to this point, Trump is merely a cynical trigger....  

There also is some sort of physiological need to have a multitude of "enemies" to lash out against, and defend themselves against.   Same, for that matter, with Donald Trump.  They all delight in his belittling and attacking of foes.  Sort of a bonding exercise, if you will.
Of course, having Trump as a standard bearer against the 1 percenters and "elites" is totally pretty illogical, in itself.   But anger, fear, and ignorance have always been pretty potent forces in history

Biden will win the popular vote of that there is no doubt, all he needs to win the electoral college is take Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and either Florida or Pennsylvania.

1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

I think it was @17to85  who brilliantly said that there are so many "Republicans who are willing to let trump **** in their mouths as long as dems have to smell it."

And from what we've seen in the last 4 years... it really holds true... its nuts!

 

Yeah but to be totally fair I read the line somewhere else so I can't take credit for it.

27 minutes ago, do or die said:

A lot of Trump supporters have simply been told over and over that they are 'victims" of those "elites" that have been oppressing them and holding them back.   

Ironic that at the same time, Jared Kushner speaks out about black people just needing to “want to be successful”. If you are white, you are being held back by others and need a leader who will make it easier for you. If you are black, you just aren’t working hard enough, and it is your own laziness holding you back. Anyone who wants an example of white privilege, this is it 100%. Jon Stewart alluded to this a few months ago on Colbert when talking about the BLM movement and the backlash. 
 

Whole segment is good, but the sound bite is at the 7:28 mark.